Supreme Court will decide whether local anti-homeless laws are ‘cruel and unusual’
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review lower-court rulings that make it harder for cities in the western United States to prevent people from sleeping on the streets when there aren’t enough beds in homeless shelters.
The justices will hear an appeal from the city of Grants Pass, in southwest Oregon, that has the backing of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, as well as other Democratic and Republican elected officials who have struggled to deal with homelessness brought on by rising housing costs and income inequality.
The court’s action comes a day after a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling blocking anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco, where Newsom once was the mayor.
A separate 9th circuit panel ruled in the Oregon case that Grants Pass could not enforce local ordinances that prohibit homeless people “from using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements.” The decision applies across nine western states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
The two rulings, like a 2018 decision from the 9th circuit in a case from Boise, Idaho, found that punishing people for sleeping on the streets when no alternative shelter is available amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Constitution.
Elected officials urged the justices to take up the case because they say the rulings complicate their efforts to clear tent encampments, which have long existed in West Coast cities, but have more recently become more common across the U.S. The federal count of homeless people reached 580,000 last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a pandemic that economically wrecked households, and a lack of access to mental health and addiction treatment.
“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need,” Newsom said in a statement.
Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Grants Pass, said in a statement that the appellate decisions “are actually harming the very people they purport to protect.”
Homeless people and their advocates say the sweeps are cruel and a waste of taxpayer money. They say the answer is more housing, not crackdowns.
Cities from Los Angeles to New York have stepped up efforts to clear encampments, records reviewed by The Associated Press show, as public pressure grew to address what some residents say are dangerous and unsanitary living conditions. But despite tens of millions of dollars spent in recent years, there appears to be little reduction in the number of tents propped up on sidewalks, in parks and by freeway off-ramps.
It’s unclear whether the case will be argued in the spring or the fall.
Court agrees to hear Starbucks appeal in Memphis union case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal from Starbucks in a dispute with the National Labor Relations Board over efforts by workers to unionize at a store in Memphis, Tennessee.
The case has been among the most closely watched in the more than 2-year-old effort to unionize Starbucks’ company-owned U.S. stores.
Starbucks fired seven employees in Memphis in February 2022, citing safety. The Seattle coffee giant said they violated company policy by reopening a store after closing time and inviting non-employees — including a television crew — to come inside and move throughout the store.
But the NLRB intervened, saying the company was unlawfully interfering in workers’ right to organize and that the store had routinely allowed employees to gather there after closing time. The NLRB asked a federal judge for an immediate injunction requiring Starbucks to reinstate the workers.
In August 2022, a federal judge agreed and ordered Starbucks to reinstate the workers. That decision was later affirmed by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Starbucks appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal issue in the case is the standard courts should use when deciding whether to issue an order against a business in the midst of a labor dispute. Starbucks said the lower courts in this case used a relaxed standard when deciding to grant the injunction to the labor board, while other federal courts have used a tougher standard.
Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks workers, said the company is trying to weaken the labor board’s ability to hold companies accountable.
“There’s no doubt that Starbucks broke federal law by firing workers in Memphis for joining together in a union,” Workers United said. “The district court determined that, and the decision was affirmed by one of the most conservative courts in the nation.”
The Memphis store did eventually vote to unionize. It is one of at least 370 Starbucks stores that have voted to unionize since late 2021.
The case has been among the most closely watched in the more than 2-year-old effort to unionize Starbucks’ company-owned U.S. stores.
Starbucks fired seven employees in Memphis in February 2022, citing safety. The Seattle coffee giant said they violated company policy by reopening a store after closing time and inviting non-employees — including a television crew — to come inside and move throughout the store.
But the NLRB intervened, saying the company was unlawfully interfering in workers’ right to organize and that the store had routinely allowed employees to gather there after closing time. The NLRB asked a federal judge for an immediate injunction requiring Starbucks to reinstate the workers.
In August 2022, a federal judge agreed and ordered Starbucks to reinstate the workers. That decision was later affirmed by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Starbucks appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal issue in the case is the standard courts should use when deciding whether to issue an order against a business in the midst of a labor dispute. Starbucks said the lower courts in this case used a relaxed standard when deciding to grant the injunction to the labor board, while other federal courts have used a tougher standard.
Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks workers, said the company is trying to weaken the labor board’s ability to hold companies accountable.
“There’s no doubt that Starbucks broke federal law by firing workers in Memphis for joining together in a union,” Workers United said. “The district court determined that, and the decision was affirmed by one of the most conservative courts in the nation.”
The Memphis store did eventually vote to unionize. It is one of at least 370 Starbucks stores that have voted to unionize since late 2021.
Court allows a court order to take effect that could cost Apple billions of dollars
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a court order to take effect that could loosen Apple’s grip on its lucrative iPhone app store, and potentially affect billions of dollars in revenue a year.
The justices rejected Apple’s appeal of lower-court rulings that found some of Apple’s app store rules for apps purchased on more than 1 billion iPhones constitute unfair competition under California law.
The appeal stemmed from an antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games, maker of the popular Fortnite video game. Epic lost its broader claim that Cupertino, California-based Apple was violating federal antitrust law, and the justices also rejected Epic’s appeal Tuesday.
But in turning away Apple’s plea, the court lifted a hold on an order to allow app developers throughout the U.S. to insert links to other payment options besides its own within iPhone apps. That change would make it easier for developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions.
Epic, based in Cary, North Carolina, had claimed that Apple’s app store — which was launched in 2008, a year after the first iPhone went on sale — had turned into an illegal monopoly that stifles innovation and competition while generating billions of dollars in profit for Apple.
Epic tried to offer an alternative way to get its mobile app, attempting to evade the developer fees inside the app store, which collects a commission of 15% to 30% on subscriptions and other digital transactions.
Apple ousted Epic from its app store after it tried to get around restrictions that Apple says protect the security and privacy of iPhone users while also helping to recoup some of the investment that powers one of the world’s most ubiquitous devices.
Last month, Epic won a jury trial against Google and its Play Store for apps on Android phones in a lawsuit mirroring its action against Apple. A federal judge still must determine what changes Google will have to make to its Play Store.
The justices rejected Apple’s appeal of lower-court rulings that found some of Apple’s app store rules for apps purchased on more than 1 billion iPhones constitute unfair competition under California law.
The appeal stemmed from an antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games, maker of the popular Fortnite video game. Epic lost its broader claim that Cupertino, California-based Apple was violating federal antitrust law, and the justices also rejected Epic’s appeal Tuesday.
But in turning away Apple’s plea, the court lifted a hold on an order to allow app developers throughout the U.S. to insert links to other payment options besides its own within iPhone apps. That change would make it easier for developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions.
Epic, based in Cary, North Carolina, had claimed that Apple’s app store — which was launched in 2008, a year after the first iPhone went on sale — had turned into an illegal monopoly that stifles innovation and competition while generating billions of dollars in profit for Apple.
Epic tried to offer an alternative way to get its mobile app, attempting to evade the developer fees inside the app store, which collects a commission of 15% to 30% on subscriptions and other digital transactions.
Apple ousted Epic from its app store after it tried to get around restrictions that Apple says protect the security and privacy of iPhone users while also helping to recoup some of the investment that powers one of the world’s most ubiquitous devices.
Last month, Epic won a jury trial against Google and its Play Store for apps on Android phones in a lawsuit mirroring its action against Apple. A federal judge still must determine what changes Google will have to make to its Play Store.
Court declines to step into the fight over bathrooms for transgender students
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed up a chance to intervene in the debate over bathrooms for transgender students, rejecting an appeal from an Indiana public school district.
Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.
In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom. The appeal came from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Indianapolis.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, also has ruled in favor of transgender students, while the appeals court based in Atlanta came out the other way.
Legal battles over transgender rights are ongoing across the country, and at least nine states are restricting transgender students to bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth.
In her opinion for the 7th Circuit, Judge Diane Wood wrote that the high court’s involvement seems inevitable.
“Litigation over transgender rights is occurring all over the country, and we assume that at some point the Supreme Court will step in with more guidance than it has furnished so far,” Wood wrote.
Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.
In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom. The appeal came from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Indianapolis.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, also has ruled in favor of transgender students, while the appeals court based in Atlanta came out the other way.
Legal battles over transgender rights are ongoing across the country, and at least nine states are restricting transgender students to bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth.
In her opinion for the 7th Circuit, Judge Diane Wood wrote that the high court’s involvement seems inevitable.
“Litigation over transgender rights is occurring all over the country, and we assume that at some point the Supreme Court will step in with more guidance than it has furnished so far,” Wood wrote.
