Connect with us

Economics

Is ticketing homeless people a cruel and unusual punishment?

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

IN 2013 local leaders in Grants Pass, Oregon, held a meeting to brainstorm ideas for how to tackle the city’s growing “vagrancy problem”. A record of that meeting states that participants suggested “driving repeat offenders out of town and leaving them there”, and buying homeless people a bus ticket to anywhere else. “The point”, said Lily Morgan, a city-council member, “is to make it uncomfortable enough for them in our city so they will want to move on down the road.”

The city, tucked between the Cascade and Siskiyou mountains north of the California border, banned sleeping and camping in public places. Over the next few years Ed Johnson, the director of litigation for the Oregon Law Centre, a legal charity, started to hear from homeless people in Grants Pass. They were woken by police, he recalls, slapped with fines they couldn’t pay and thrown in jail. In 2018 Mr Johnson sued the city on behalf of his homeless clients. On April 22nd the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Grants Pass v Johnson. The question at the heart of the case is whether penalising homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go counts as cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned by the Eighth Amendment.

Two cases will serve as important precedent. In 1962 the Supreme Court found in Robinson v California that a Golden State law making drug addiction illegal—rather than the use, purchase or sale of drugs—was unconstitutional. Jail time alone is not cruel and unusual, wrote Justice Potter Stewart, in his majority opinion. But the law criminalised a status rather than an act, and “even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the ‘crime’ of having a common cold.”

In 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine western states, applied the logic set out in Robinson v California to homelessness. In Martin v Boise the court held that the city of Boise could not penalise people for sleeping rough when no shelter was available to them, as such citations ran afoul of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to review the case in 2019. Deciding to hear Grants Pass v Johnson gives the court, now more conservative than it was five years ago, another crack at the issue.

Western politicians are hoping the court’s ruling will offer clarity on how to tackle the proliferation of tent encampments. Half of the growth in America’s homeless population between 2020 and 2023 came from the nine western states that comprise the Ninth Circuit. More than a quarter came from California alone. Oskar Rey, a lawyer who advised cities on how to comply with the Boise and Grants Pass rulings, argues that they are narrower than many think. “Sweeping” or breaking up encampments is allowable so long as cities aren’t ticketing homeless people who have no other shelter, argues Mr Rey. Sweeping encampments is anathema to activists who argue that tearing down tents is traumatising, but doing so does not criminalise homelessness.

Still, some policymakers argue that the courts have tied their hands. In some cases that is true. In 2022 a federal judge interpreted the Boise and Johnson rulings broadly, and blocked San Francisco from clearing encampments when there is no other shelter available. Politicians have another reason to blame the courts: it is easier to whine about judges than to shoulder the blame themselves for failed policies.

The interest in Johnson is also revealing of a larger trend. As recently as the early part of the covid-19 pandemic, Democrats were leery of sweeping away encampments. That liberal mayors around the West are now trumpeting their attempts to eradicate them is testimony to how fed up their voters are with homelessness in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland. Tents have come to symbolise disorder and failed policies. No wonder politicians who hope to stay in office want them gone.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

Gavin Newsom is ready for his close-up

Published

on

NORMALLY, GAVIN NEWSOM is loose. The Democratic governor of California talks with a staccato cadence, often flitting from one incomplete thought to the next. When he talks to journalists or asks a guest on his podcast a meandering question, he tends to use a lot of meaningless filler words: “in the context of” is a frequent Newsomism. But on June 10th he was clear and direct. “This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation,” he said during a televised address after President Donald Trump deployed nearly 5,000 troops to Los Angeles to quell protests over immigration raids. “We do not want our streets militarised by our own armed forces. Not in LA. Not in California. Not anywhere.”

Continue Reading

Economics

Consumer sentiment reading rebounds to much higher level than expected as people get over tariff shock

Published

on

A woman shops at a supermarket on April 30, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.

Sha Hanting | China News Service | Getty Images

Consumers in the early part of June took a considerably less pessimistic about the economy and potential surges in inflation as progress appeared possible in the global trade war, according to a University of Michigan survey Friday.

The university’s closely watched Surveys of Consumers showed across-the-board rebounds from previously dour readings, while respondents also sharply cut back their outlook for near-term inflation.

For the headline index of consumer sentiment, the gauge was at 60.5, well ahead of the Dow Jones estimate for 54 and a 15.9% increase from a month ago. The current conditions index jumped 8.1%, while the future expectations measure soared 21.9%.

The moves coincided with a softening in the heated rhetoric that has surrounded President Donald Trump’s tariffs. After releasing his April 2 “liberation day” announcement, Trump has eased off the threats and instituted a 90-day negotiation period that appears to be showing progress, particularly with top trade rival China.

“Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,” survey director Joanne Hsu said in a statement. “However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.”

To be sure, all of the sentiment indexes were still considerably below their year-ago readings as consumers worry about what impact the tariffs will have on prices, along with a host of other geopolitical concerns.

On inflation, the one-year outlook tumbled from levels not seen since 1981.

The one-year estimate slid to 5.1%, a 1.5 percentage point drop, while the five-year view edged lower to 4.1%, a 0.1 percentage point decrease.

“Consumers’ fears about the potential impact of tariffs on future inflation have softened somewhat in June,” Hsu said. “Still, inflation expectations remain above readings seen throughout the second half of 2024, reflecting widespread beliefs that trade policy may still contribute to an increase in inflation in the year ahead.”

The Michigan survey, which will be updated at the end of the month, had been an outlier on inflation fears, with other sentiment and market indicators showing the outlook was fairly contained despite the tariff tensions. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve of New York reported that the one-year view had fallen to 3.2% in May, a 0.4 percentage point drop from the prior month.

At the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics this week reported that both producer and consumer prices increase just 0.1% on a monthly basis, pointing toward little upward pressure from the duties. Economists still largely expect the tariffs to show impact in the coming months.

The soft inflation numbers have led Trump and other White House officials to demand the Fed start lowering interest rates again. The central bank is slated to meet next week, with market expectations strongly pointing to no cuts until September.

Continue Reading

Economics

Reeves’ plans contending with the bond market

Published

on

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – MARCH 26, 2025: Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves leaves 11 Downing Street ahead of the announcement of the Spring Statement in the House of Commons in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2025. (Photo credit should read Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

Wiktor Szymanowicz | Future Publishing | Getty Images

Britain’s government is planning to ramp up public spending — but market watchers warn the proposals risk sending jitters through the bond market further inflating the country’s $143 billion-a-year interest payments.

U.K. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced the government would inject billions of pounds into defense, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas of the economy, in the coming years. A day later, however, official data showed the U.K. economy shrank by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in April.

Funding public spending in the absence of a growing economy, leaves the government with two options: raise money through taxation, or take on more debt.

One way it can borrow is to issue bonds, known as gilts in the U.K., into the public market. By purchasing gilts, investors are essentially lending money to the government, with the yield on the bond representing the return the investor can expect to receive.

Gilt yields and prices move in opposite directions — so rising prices move yields lower, and vice versa. This year, gilt yields have seen volatile moves, with investors sensitive to geopolitical and macroeconomic instability.

The U.K. government’s long-term borrowing costs spiked to multi-decade highs in January, and the yield on 20- and 30-year gilts continues to hover firmly above 5%.

Official estimates show the government is expected to spend more than £105 billion ($142.9 billion) paying interest on its national debt in the 2025 fiscal year — £9.4 billion higher than at the the time of the Autumn budget last year — and £111 billion in annual interest in 2026.

The government did not say on Wednesday how its newly unveiled spending hikes will be funded, and did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment about where the money will come from. However, in her Autumn Budget last year, Reeves outlined plans to hike both taxes and borrowing. Following the budget, the finance minister pledged not to raise taxes again during the current Labour government’s term in office, saying that the government “won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.”

Andrew Goodwin, chief U.K. economist at Oxford Economics, said Britain’s government may be forced to go even further with its spending plans, with NATO poised to hike its defense spending target for member states to 5% of GDP, and once a U-turn on winter fuel payments for the elderly and other possible welfare reforms are factored in.

Additionally, Goodwin said, the U.K.’s Office for Budget Responsibility is likely to make “unfavorable revisions” to its economic forecasts in July, which would lead to lower tax receipts and higher borrowing.

“If recent movements in financial market pricing hold, debt servicing costs will be around £2.5bn ($3.4 billion) higher than they were at the time of the Spring Statement,” Goodwin warned in a note on Wednesday.

‘Very fragile situation’

Mel Stride, who serves as the shadow Chancellor in the U.K.’s opposition government, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday that the Spending Review raised questions about whether “a huge amount of borrowing” will be involved in funding the government’s fiscal strategies.

“[Government] borrowing is having consequences in terms of higher inflation in the U.K. … and therefore interest rates [are] higher for longer,” he said. “It’s adding to the debt mountain, the servicing costs upon which are running at 100 billion [pounds] a year, that’s twice what we spend on defense.”

“I’m afraid the overall economy is in a very weak position to withstand the kind of spending and borrowing that this government is announcing,” Stride added.

UK is in a 'very fragile situation,' Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride says

Stride argued that Reeves will “almost certainly” have to raise taxes again in her next budget announcement due in the autumn.

“We’ve ended up in a very fragile situation, particularly when you’ve got the tariffs around the world,” he said.

Rufaro Chiriseri, head of fixed income for the British Isles at RBC Wealth Management, told CNBC that rising borrowing costs were putting Reeves’ “already small fiscal headroom at risk.”

“This reduced headroom could create a snowball effect, as investors could potentially become nervous to hold UK debt, which could lead to a further selloff until fiscal stability is restored,” he said.

Iain Barnes, Chief Investment Officer at Netwealth, also told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was in “a state of fiscal fragility, so room for manoeuvre is limited.”

“The market knows that if growth disappoints, then this year’s Budget may have to deliver higher taxes and increased borrowing to fund spending plans,” Barnes said.

However, April LaRusse, head of investment specialists at Insight Investment, argued there were ways for debt servicing burdens to be kept under control.

The U.K.’s Debt Management Office, which issues gilts, has scope to reshape issuance patters — the maturity and type of gilts issued — to help the government get its borrowing costs under control, she said.

“With the average yield on the 1-10 year gilts at c4% and the yield on the 15 year + gilts at 5.2% yield, there is scope to make the debt financing costs more affordable,” she explained.

However, LaRusse noted that debt interest payments for the U.K. government were estimated to reach the equivalent of around 3.5% of GDP this fiscal year, and that overspending could worsen the burden.

“This increase is driven not only by higher interest rates, which gradually translate into higher coupon payments, but also by elevated levels of government spending, compounding the fiscal burden,” she said.

Continue Reading

Trending