Joe Jackson knew things were not looking good after traveling to Washington, D.C., in April while the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments that he knew could greatly impact those he serves as executive director of Hesed House in Aurora.
Nor did Colleen Boraca who, as director of the Northern Illinois University College of Law Health Advocacy Clinic, listened intently to those SCOTUS judges from her on-site office at the large homeless shelter on River Street.
The decision handed down a week ago in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson confirmed their worst fears.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court determined laws which impose civil and criminal penalties on the homeless do not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Which both Jackson and Boraca view as a blow to some of society’s most vulnerable people because it will allow municipalities across the country to outlaw the unsheltered from sleeping outside, even if they have no other choice on how to survive.
The ruling upended a 2018 appeals court decision that determined you can’t ban sleeping on public property if there is no available shelter. Writing for the court’s majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that while people may disagree on how best to address homelessness, the federal judiciary should not be the decider of those policies.
But Jackson declares last Friday’s ruling as “ominous” because it “opens the door for municipalities and states to take a punitive approach to homelessness,” which, he added, has “been proven not to work.”
Boraca, who was recently named the Hesed House 2024 Humanitarian of the Year, told me what she struggles with after the disappointing but not surprising decision is the fact that the people who could be penalized have nowhere else to go.
“They are not just deciding to sleep in parks because they want to. There is no shelter available for them,” she declared. And this ruling has now made it clear we all have to make a choice on “what kind of society we want to be.”
Discussing these laws is important, both advocates insist, because homelessness is on the rise across the country, and our Fox Valley communities are no exception.
For example, the number of unsheltered in Aurora has increased greatly since 2020, when Hesed House served 142 people per night, they noted. The state’s second-largest shelter now serves 293 people nightly, and for the first time since it opened 41 years ago has a wait list.
As of this week, there are about 70 people on the streets at night because there is no room at Hesed House, said Jackson, adding that “rather than pass laws and city ordinances to criminalize them, there needs to be more effort into housing them.”
Which makes far more financial sense, he and Boraca contend. For example, the median rent for a studio apartment in Illinois is $989 a month – or $11,868 annually – compared to the $37,000 per year it costs to incarcerate one individual.
More startling statistics: According to a 2023 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, forcibly displaced people die at rates two to six times higher than the average person, have an 11% reduction in life expectancy and a 50% increase in hospitalizations, all of which greatly increase health care costs.
Boraca and Jackson also point out that when cities impose fines on unhoused people who do not have the financial resources to pay them, that debt goes into collection, which in turn harms their credit, preventing them from obtaining housing and making it even more difficult to find jobs.
As disheartened as they are about the Supreme Court decision, Jackson is hopeful the ruling will not only reinvigorate an already caring staff and volunteers at Hesed House but will also “add to the argument” for more affordable housing.
The good news is that Aurora, particularly as of late, has been “unparalleled” in its response to the issue, noted Jackson, as partnerships have been formed with many social service agencies to address both short- and long-term housing shortages.
But it takes time to turn that big ship around. And there’s no question, both advocates agree, that the Supreme Court ruling puts an already vulnerable population more at risk.
“This is definitely a setback for Hesed House, but does not knock us out,” said Jackson, adding that there have been plenty of conversations about the Supreme Court decision around the shelter’s dinner tables. And the Outreach Team at the shelter has been fielding more questions as well.
“They ask us if they have to worry,” he said. “They look to us as experts who can help them. But we don’t have an answer.”
dcrosby@tribpub.com
