Posted on Dec 20, 2023
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down law banning sleeping on public land
1.6K
5
2
3
3
0
A wide-ranging bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly last year banning sleeping on public land was struck down on Tuesday by the Missouri Supreme Court. Critics of the bill feared it essentially criminalized homelessness.
A wide-ranging bill passed by the state legislature last year banning sleeping on public land was struck down on Tuesday by the Missouri Supreme Court for violating the constitution’s single subject requirement.
Missouri lawmakers last year madesleeping on state-owned land a Class C misdemeanor and restricted state funds for combating homelessness. The legislation was passed as an amendment in a broader bill relating to political subdivisions just before the end of the 2022 session.
Critics of the bill feared it essentially criminalized homelessness. Supporters characterized it as reducing the prevalence of encampments they deemed dangerous to unhoused people and surrounding communities.
Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, along with Public Citizen Litigation Group and a Springfield homeless shelter, filed a lawsuit last year against the state, arguing the homelessness provisions did not fit within the bill’s overarching subject of “relating to political subdivisions.”
A wide-ranging bill passed by the state legislature last year banning sleeping on public land was struck down on Tuesday by the Missouri Supreme Court for violating the constitution’s single subject requirement.
Missouri lawmakers last year madesleeping on state-owned land a Class C misdemeanor and restricted state funds for combating homelessness. The legislation was passed as an amendment in a broader bill relating to political subdivisions just before the end of the 2022 session.
Critics of the bill feared it essentially criminalized homelessness. Supporters characterized it as reducing the prevalence of encampments they deemed dangerous to unhoused people and surrounding communities.
Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, along with Public Citizen Litigation Group and a Springfield homeless shelter, filed a lawsuit last year against the state, arguing the homelessness provisions did not fit within the bill’s overarching subject of “relating to political subdivisions.”
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down law banning sleeping on public land
Posted from kcur.org
Homeless
Home
Housing
Law
Posted 4 mo ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The homelessness provisions added on to the bill “introduced at least one impermissible additional subject, i.e., homelessness,” Wilson wrote.
The “primary inquiry,” he wrote, is whether all provisions of the bill “fairly relate to, have a natural connection with, or are means to accomplish [the bill’s] subject, i.e., ‘political subdivisions.’”
Even though some of the homelessness provisions regulate state funds that would apply to political subdivisions receiving those funds, Wilson wrote, the provisions also apply to nonprofits and private developers.
Other homelessness-related provisions in the bill, he wrote, don’t relate to political subdivisions at all.
With the homelessness provisions found unconstitutional, the court then weighed whether that required it to strike down the rest of the sprawling bill.
“It takes an extraordinary showing to convince this court to engage in judicial surgery to save a bill infected with the otherwise fatal constitutional disease of multiple subjects,” Wilson wrote, “and no effort was made by any party to make such a showing here.”
As a result, the rest of the bill — including provisions related to county financial statements, county coroners’ salaries, and more — were also struck down Tuesday, with the court arguing it was unable to determine whether the bill would’ve passed without the homelessness provisions."
..."The homelessness provisions added on to the bill “introduced at least one impermissible additional subject, i.e., homelessness,” Wilson wrote.
The “primary inquiry,” he wrote, is whether all provisions of the bill “fairly relate to, have a natural connection with, or are means to accomplish [the bill’s] subject, i.e., ‘political subdivisions.’”
Even though some of the homelessness provisions regulate state funds that would apply to political subdivisions receiving those funds, Wilson wrote, the provisions also apply to nonprofits and private developers.
Other homelessness-related provisions in the bill, he wrote, don’t relate to political subdivisions at all.
With the homelessness provisions found unconstitutional, the court then weighed whether that required it to strike down the rest of the sprawling bill.
“It takes an extraordinary showing to convince this court to engage in judicial surgery to save a bill infected with the otherwise fatal constitutional disease of multiple subjects,” Wilson wrote, “and no effort was made by any party to make such a showing here.”
As a result, the rest of the bill — including provisions related to county financial statements, county coroners’ salaries, and more — were also struck down Tuesday, with the court arguing it was unable to determine whether the bill would’ve passed without the homelessness provisions."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google