In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. She said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with “an impossible choice — either stay awake or be arrested.”
She should take them in, then.
I'm not sure if this is related to the Boise case from a (2 years?) ago, which I think also went to a circuit court, which ruled in favor of Boise cleaning up the "permanent" encampments.
One of the "keep the homeless" arguments in Boise was that they would have nowhere to go. Which was false, and I bet it's the same in a lot of cities. In Boise's case, there are a couple of homeless shelters that take in anyone and basically have no rules about drugs, alcohol, sleeping arrangements, etc. They are always at capacity.
The other place, which I donate to every year, is the Boise Rescue Mission, where there are strictly no drugs or alcohol (other than any prescriptions for weaning addicts off their stuff), and only married couples bunk together. The Rescue Mission has a very high rate of getting people off the streets and into jobs and homes. It always has space because people would rather do their meth than have a roof over their heads. I'm betting most cities have the same situation between the commie pinko shelters and the ones with rules.