Poverty in the United States: A Comprehensive Overview
INTRO TO POVERTY
Ways to Measure Poverty: absolute poverty – basic needs framework (the physiological minima for human survival); food, shelter, etc.; developing countries where many dont basic needs met | relative poverty – based on person’s position in society; based on proportion of current mean income/consumption; developed where basic needs are generally met | Peter Townsend – relative deprivation relative based on countries – based on unique cultural perceptions of “needs” and what is considered “essential”;example: clothing needs differ based on climate | Amartya Sen – absolute/relative alone both insufficient; capability approach: not merely possessions, but individuals’ ability to lead a life they value, society free of want (FDR)
US Poverty Line: US Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) annual poverty guidelines (info from previous year US Census) used for eligibility determinations for federal/state programs | some program/assistance eligibility is based on a multiple of the poverty line (ex: SNAP @ 130% poverty line) | developed by Orshanksy from the Soc. Secur. Admin. (SSA), used multiplier methodology (food plan x 3, based on patterns of consumption) | Jodie Allen recommendation for changing poverty line: Supplemental Poverty Measure: quasi-relative standard of poverty – 33rd percentile of expenditure distribution for all US households
Poverty in the US:poverty correlates with US economic output | disproportionately affects minorities | myths and stereotypes shape programs and policies | childhood poverty linked to lifelong adverse outcomes | Welfare-Poverty Paradox: despite massive spending, poverty reduction stalled | poverty does not impact nutririon much in US | poor families prioritize basic needs; can afford essential needs and medical care despite challenges
Economic Mobility: Jarden Bernstein – Intragenerational (im)mobility: tend to end up at or near the same income position where they started; Intergenerational (im)mobility: considerable persistence in income status across generations; economic inequality has increased overtime + economic mobility has decreased overtime; international comparison: correlations between fathers’ and sons’ earnings are lower in comparison countries, suggesting greater mobility than other countries
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
The New Deal: stock market crash of 1929 led to Great Depression | Roosevelt’s New Deal comprised four parts: (1) work relief, (2) unemployment insurance (financed by contributions and taxes), (3) Social Security for retirees (SSAct 1935), (4) and grant-in-aid programs for dependent children, old-age assistance, and aid to the blind | Grant-in-Aid Programs: provided assistance to the states for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children | Joel F. Handler criticism – aid for poor single mothers remained limited (reflect attitudes about work/undeserving poor); relief for the noncategorical poor (include single mothers + their kids) insufficient and largely unchanged | Helvering v. Davis (1937) – upheld the constitutionality of SSAct 1935; affirm Congress’s Spending Power to levy taxes for funding the Act/spend $ for general welfare | Michael Harrington criticism of New Deal – SSAct 1935 excluded non-White mothers, elderly African Americans, & young unemployed; G.I. Bill (benefits to WWII veterans) credited with creating White middle class, did not reach urban/rural poor
Legislative initiatives:Walter Trattner – poverty persisted despite economic growth/social welfare advances in 40/50s, prompting shift in perceptions/policies; led to implementation of initiatives like War on Poverty, including measures such as the Economic Opportunity Act & expansion of healthcare through Medicare & Medicaid; challenges in welfare policy persisted, with number of recipients & expenditures rising
The Courts: King v. State (1968) – Alabama regulation denying Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to kids if mother cohabits with an able-bodied man invalidated by the court, emphasized Congress’s goal of protecting dependent children and rejected the notion of punishing kids for parental behavior. Justice Douglas concurred, parent behavior lacked a rational connection to their need for assistance
Social Welfare Policy Critics: Charles Murray – Transfers justified based on social values and principles; aiding the unemployed is generally accepted, but helping willfully unemployed raises ethical concerns; discrimination b/w deserving & undeserving recipients is crucial; evaluating social transfers is complex, require a balance between benefits & potential harms | Lawrence Mead – Federal programs since 1960 struggle despite increase funding; permissiveness in programs leads to welfare dependency; main issue: lack of meaningful obligations from recipients, undermining work ethic/integration; obligating the poor supports equality goals b/c promotes social competences for equal citizenship | William Wilson – rising social dislocation in low-income urban areas, spark debates on causes/solutions; Conservatives argued liberal policies worsened inner-city problems; social isolation in low-income urban areas, not “culture of poverty,” emerges as a key barrier, hindering ghetto underclass’ interaction w/ mainstream society
Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996 (PRWORA) – Clinton continued Reagan’s anti-welfare stance, promise to “end welfare as we know it.”; Clinton signed PRWORA, (replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) | TANF – time-limited block grant program w/ stringent work requirements. TANF aimed to reduce dependency, prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encourage two-parent families, allow states to set lifetime benefit limits of no more than 60 months | William Clinton – PRWORA Act aims to overhaul welfare system by promoting work, responsibility, and family values through mandatory work and time limits on benefits; Despite criticisms, seen as a significant improvement, preserving health care guarantees and increasing funds for child care; prioritizes child protection and parental responsibility while giving states flexibility in implementation; Though concerns remain, PRWORA represents progress towards welfare reform, emphasizing collaboration among stakeholders
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010: Nan Hunter – PPACA/ACA sparks discussion on nexus between citizenship and healthcare access; It aims to streamline insurance markets, address coverage gaps, and regulate exchanges; individual mandate – questioning balance between personal freedom and societal welfare; Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Lochner v. New York highlight influence on citizens’ duties to collective benefit/societal welfare | Samuel Bagenstos – 2016 election shifted discourse on social welfare policy (Republican control potentially enabling ACA repeal); Bernie Sanders – universal policies, Hillary Clinton – more targeted measures; Trump’s actions against ACA fueled arguments for bold universalism; growing consensus among Democrats for single-payer health care, universal basic income, and free college, indicating shift towards universalism in the left-liberal
Trump Admin and social welfare policy:Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Poverty in America (2018) aims to promote opportunity/econ mobility by emphasizing freedom & equal opportunity principles; critiques government programs for perpetuating poverty; calls for further welfare reform to enhance self-sufficiency; advocates for shifting focus towards moving poor to financial independence through work opportunities & investments; emphasizes principles of economic mobility, including improving employment outcomes & empowering state/local govts, private-sector, & community orgs to administer public assistance programs tailored to communities’ needs | Jason DeParle – US significant reduction in child poverty by 59% from 1993 to 2019; contributing to decline include lower unemployment, increased labor force participation single mothers, & expansion of govt aid programs – safety net programs (like earned-income tax credit/SNAP); racial and ethnic disparities persist; US still lags behind peer nations in terms of child poverty rates
POVERTY + THE CONSTITUTION
Allen Redlich – Advocates envisioned attacking flaws in state welfare programs and benefit levels based on constitutional rights; Dandridge’s ruling halted these efforts, a setback but not the end of the advocacy for constitutional rights of the poor.
Substantive v procedural constitutional rights: poor people’s claims to procedural rights been more successful than claims to substantive rights
Benefits as ‘property’ protected by Constitution: Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) – established that welfare benefits constitute “property” protected by 14th A Due Process Clause, following concept of “the New Property” by Charles Reich; SCOTUS ruled terminating welfare benefits without pre-termination evidentiary hearing violated recipients’ due process rights; prioritized recipients’ needs and rights, outlining procedural safeguards for meaningful hearings; Justice Black dissented – concerns about decision’s implementation & potential abuse by recipients | Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) – whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause mandates evidentiary hearing before terminating SS Disability benefits; state govt argued that existing administrative procedures were sufficient; Court held that an evidentiary hearing was NOT required before terminating b/c existing procedures adequately safeguarded due process. Justice Brennan dissented – advocating for hearing before termination b/c potential hardship for recipients. | Goldberg: rose from AFDC, triggered 14th A due process/Matthews: rose from SSA claim, triggered 5th A due process | Kapps v. Wing – Holding: Yes, applicant for entitlement program w/ rigid eligibility standards has property interest in entitlement and IS entitled to 14th due process
Guidance for state agencies on proper notice of benefit termination/reduction/denial: adequate notice (language spoken in house, clear/understandable), timely notice (at least 10 days before the action), explanation of the proposed action, reason for the proposed action, info used to make the decision, household’s right to request a fair hearing , what a participant can do next/contact info, availability of continued benefits until the hearing + participant’s liability if not successful at hearing, availability of free legal representation
Equal Protection rubric/levels of scrutiny: Constitutional law applies different levels of scrutiny to governmental actions, with the “rational basis” test being the default. However, “elevated scrutiny,” such as “strict scrutiny,” applies to laws based on “suspect” classifications like race | poverty status as suspect class is ambiguous
Govt imposed prices/voting rights: Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections (1966) – Court concludes that a state DOES violate 14th A Equal Protection Clause whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications should have no relation to wealth or paying any tax | National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 aims to increase voter reg & address past discriminatory practices by requiring public assistance agencies to provide voter registration opportunities to clients; problem: lack of compliance.
14th A Right to Travel: Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) – Court holds that state’s waiting-period requirement inhibits migration, which is constitutionally impermissible, as the right to travel throughout US is a fundamental right. | 14th A right to travel/be treated equally in all states: Saenz v. Roe (1999) – Court emphasizes right to travel & asserts right to be treated equally in one’s new state of residence REGARDLESS of length of residence is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Equal Protection & Classification discrimination: Dandridge v. Williams (1970) – family cap on Maryland’s AFDC program; Court UPHELD the regulation, in economic and social welfare matters, states CAN implement imperfect classifications ONLY IF they have a rational basis; emphasized the State’s legitimate interests in encouraging employment; Marshall dissent: arguing that family cap regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause | Jefferson v. Hackney (1972) – Court rejects equal protection challenge, affirming that state is free to have separate welfare plans for different categories of recipients under the Social Security Act; state legislative efforts to address poverty/welfare issues are NOT subject to strict constitutional scrutiny IF rational and not invidious | Danbridge/Jefferson – racially disparate impact based on facially neutral welfare policies – disproportionate IMPACT alone does NOT = unconstitutional, must prove discriminatory purpose/intent.
Administrative law: concerns the authority of agencies to take specific actions, both substantively and procedurally; Administrative Procedure Act (APA) applies to all federal government agencies and outlines general procedures for rulemaking; Chevron doctrine: mandates courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute; highlighting agencies’ expertise in resolving statutory ambiguities; Chevron test: (1) if it’s reasonable and (2) Congress hasn’t directly addressed the issue.; disagreements persist over whether Chevron itself is problematic or if it should just be limited | Skidmore deference – refers to the level of deference given by courts to an agency’s non-binding interpretations of statutes or regulations (ex: policy statements or agency manuals)
Welfare
Levesque v. Block (1983) – Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA) to counter food stamp program fraud; OBRA broadened the definition of a “household” to presume parents and children living together as a single household for eligibility; Holding: an agency CANNOT dispense with procedural rulemaking requirements without good cause when enacting a legislative rule – APA § 553 mandates agencies to provide public notice and comment on proposed rules (EXCEPT for interpretive rules); Chocolate Manufacturers Association v. Block – Holding: adequate notice is NOT provided if changes in the proposed rule after comments are not in character with the original plan and do not logically stem from the notice and comments, Section 4 APA; Lamberton v. Shalala (1994) – Holding: regulation CAN be invalidated under APA if the implementing agency fails to consider the practical effects of the rule on congressional intent; Major Questions doctrine – when agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statute concerns issue of significant economic/political/social importance, courts MAY refuse to defer to the agency’s interpretation under the Chevron doctrine
Welare is NOT an entitlement: modern welfare, like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), is limited and not an entitlement; Elimination of entitlement to assistance – TANF recipients no longer have an constitutional right to benefits.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): program providing child-based cash assistance in the United States | TANF implemented by PRWORA – prioritizes welfare reduction over poverty reduction | PRWORA goals: promote childcare in their homes or relatives’ homes, end dependence on govt benefits, promote work, promote marraige/reduce out-of-wed pregnancies, promote two parent household | Federal (provides funds) and state govt (additional funds and manage administration, gives states flexibility) | States must meet minimum work participation rate (WPR) standards to avoid reduction in federal TANF funds | TANF eligibility: eligibility not solely based on categorical tests (like income or dependent children) (necessary but not sufficient for aid), states impose their own priorities and requirements; TANF features: work requirements (core activities), work activities (non-core activities with some limits), five-year time limit, state maintanence of effort (MOE), penalties: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may reduce the state’s block grant if state fails to meet requirements
Brief history of work expectations for mothers – Susan Blank & Barbara Blum: historical context of work expectations for welfare mothers evolved from the ADC program supporting widows to cultural shifts challenging traditional roles, leading to initiatives like the Work Incentive Program (WIN) and the Family Support Act (FSA), which aimed to transition welfare recipients to economic self-sufficiency despite resource constraints and varying levels of effectiveness | Dorothy Roberts – critiques welfare policy’s maternalist rhetoric exclusion of Black mothers, perpetuates stereotypes of their incompetence, devalues their domestic labor, and overlooks potential contributions of Black children; advocates for reevaluation of welfare reform proposals to address unique challenges faced by poor Black families.
Dozier v. Williams County Service Board (1999): Dozier appeals reduction of her public assistance benefits due to non-compliance with work requirements, stemming from changes in welfare laws (PRWORA 1996) despite initially receiving a medical exemption and her subsequent choice to attend college full-time; Court upheld sanction, affirming the Department’s findings and conclusions.
TANF marriage promotion: Marriage promotion initiatives aim to increase marriage rates among low-income individuals but face criticism for oversimplifying the reasons for low marriage rates and violating women’s rights | TANF family caps: limit welfare benefits for additional children born to recipients, have been implemented in several states post-PRWORA (but not required by federal mandates) | TANF child support enforcement: requires participants to cooperate with child support enforcement mechanisms/compliance with establishing paternity and enforcing support orders, non-cooperation can result in sanctions (deductions or denial of benefits), reflect expectation that parents should financially support their children, with public support as last resort | Anna Marie Smith – agreement on principle of absent parents’ responsibility for child support, but challenges arise in practically implementing enforcement policies | Williams v. Humphreys (2000) – If state doesn’t provide public assistance to a child, it can’t require that child to assign child-support payments to offset benefits provided to other family members | Williams v. Martin (2003) – Court concludes that TANF requirement to assign child support rights to the state even for capped children not receiving additional benefits doesn’t unduly interfere with the claimants’ expectations or constitute a taking (reasoning: capped children still indirectly benefit)
Food and Nutrition Support: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); orginated from New Deal; significant federal benefits program; Dramatically extended with the Food Stamp Act of 1964 after rapid growth; PRWORA brought changes to SNAP, including eliminating eligibility for most legal immigrants, imposing time limits for able-bodied adults without dependents, and adjusting benefit formulas.
Wage supplement: SNAP serves as a wage supplement for many working people, distinguishing it from other welfare programs like TANF and SSI.
WELFARE CONT.
SNAP Eligibility: Broad availability to households with low incomes, unlike other means-tested benefit programs; Federal rules set eligibility criteria (including gross monthly income below 130% of the poverty line, net monthly income below the poverty line, and asset limits) | No categorical eligibility requirements (age, deprived of the support of a parent, disability, etc.), but there are certain program requirements and exclusions that have been debated/litigated| Exclusions: Some categories ineligible regardless of income or assets, such as strikers, certain college students, and undocumented immigrants | Limitations: Most unemployed childless adults limited to three months of benefits UNLESS meeting work requirements or participating in work programs.
US Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) – No Food Stamps for Hippies case: The constitutionality of §3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, excluding households with unrelated individuals from the food stamp program, was challenged as it denied assistance to eligible individuals, deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the court due to lack of rational basis and infringement on fundamental associational rights.
Walton v. Hammons (1999) – Holding: The statute’s language focuses on individual member disqualifications, indicating that consequences should NOT extend to the entire family.
Wyman v. James (1971) – Fourth Amendment Concerns: NO direct Fourth Amendment violation due to the nature of the visit – Visit categorized as rehabilitative rather than investigatory, Not a criminal investigation/no forced entry | Reasonableness: Visit serves the public interest in aiding children,Validates the state’s interest in ensuring proper use of tax-funded assistance, Emphasizes the significance of the home visit in welfare administration. Douglass dissent: open to potential abuse | Sanchez v. City of San Diego (2006) – Draws on precedent (Wyman v. James) to argue visits not searches or, if they are, are reasonable.
LeBron v. Florida (2013) – father refuses suspicionless drug test | Holding: (Fla. Stat. § 414.0652) mandating drug testing for TANF applicants deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FL Temporary Cash Assistance
Manuel v. Dept. of Children and Family Services (2004) – Manuel challenges the denial of temporary cash assistance benefits for her dependent children, supervised by DCFS, due to their lack of a “specified degree of blood relationship,” arguing that they meet eligibility criteria by residing in a DCFS-approved setting under her care since 1995 | Holding: The court emphasizes that living in a DCFS-approved setting is a separate eligibility criterion from blood relationship (DCFS approved setting OR blood relationship, can’t impose both criterion); DCFS’s interpretation conflicted with the statute’s plain language, which mandates eligibility based on either criterion, NOT both.
Cindy Huddleston – Florida’s TANF program faces misconceptions and challenges, with concerns about its effectiveness and adequacy, especially its impact on children who form the majority of recipients, prompting a call for comprehensive reforms | Florida’s TANF program’s retention of an outdated “family cap” policy, impacting newborns and reinforcing harmful stereotypes, prompts a call for legislative action to rectify its adverse effects | To enhance Florida’s TANF program, lawmakers must adopt a multifaceted approach, including increasing benefit levels, improving outreach and accessibility, simplifying eligibility criteria, reallocating funds to direct assistance, extending time limits, enhancing employment and training programs, repealing the family cap policy, reforming work penalty policies, and ending lifetime bans on TANF eligibility to address various shortcomings and ensure equity for participants.
Unemployment Insurance
Umemployment insurance: Established by SSAct 1935, Unemployment Compensation (UC) provides temporary wage replacement for jobless workers, sustaining their purchasing power during unemployment | UC is a social insurance program, offering benefits to individuals out of work through no fault of their own | Federal-state partnership (similar to TANF structure): Federal law sets broad guidelines, states administer program under state law | Financing: Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) levies a 6.0 percent tax on covered employers | Jeremy Pilaar – UC reform for improvement, National UI – A national UI system would streamline reforms and ensure consistency across states, addressing current inefficiencies and disparities
Earned Income Tax Credit
EITC – a federal tax credit designed to support low- and moderate-income working individuals and families, serving as both an income supplement and a wage subsidy | administered through the tax system: aims to encourage and reward work while offsetting federal payroll and income taxes | Refundable – meaning excess credit beyond tax liability is refunded by the IRS – BETTER for low income individuals | State EITC – Twenty-nine states, along with the District of Columbia, have their own EITCs to complement the federal credit | Impact – significant impact on poverty reduction | Criticism – Childless adults/noncustodial parents working full-time at minimum wage do NOT qualify for the EITC, leaving them vulnerable to poverty.
Child Tax Credit – assists families with the costs of raising children | expanded multiple times with bipartisan support | expanded further under 2021 American Rescue Plan Act – increased benefit amount/child, included 17 y/o’s, dispersed benefits into monthly payments, made it fully refundable rather than partially refundable | reverted to pre-Rescue in 2022
Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income (UBI) – separates income from work and guarantees subsistence income to all individuals as a universal right, based on citizenship, residence, or other life cycle triggers | Thomas Paine – proposed ‘capital grants’ in 1795 | Nixonproposed UBI in Family Assistance Plan in 1967 | eliminates the traditional distinctions between deserving and undeserving recipients of welfare, fundamentally altering the welfare state’s framework | Juliana Bidadanure et al. – As the workforce faces significant transformations (like automation and AI), concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) emerges as a scalable solution to address inequality and decreasing wages, while demonstration projects like SEED in California, aim to confront poverty and inequality by providing unconditional cash payments to residents
Housing
Pruitt-Igoe – A public housing apartment complex built to replace slums faced maintenance and trash collection issues, leading to habitability concerns, strict rule enforcement, and evictions; when residents demanded changes by withholding rent, the government refused, resulting in the complex falling into disrepair, increasing crime, and ultimately being demolished, serving as a conservative critique of welfare and public housing.
Significance of housing: fundamental need | largest expenditure for most families | historic/systemic discrimination in housing/segregation led to disparate impact of POC and impacted generational wealth | Efforts to establish a statutory right to housing, like “Bringing America Home Act,” have NOT gained significant support @ federal level | The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) established in New Deal institutionalized segregation (redlining) | The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), created in 1934, subsidized discriminatory home loans/supported construction of racially exclusive subdivisions | G.I. Bill, while facially race-neutral, favored White veterans over Black veterans in accessing housing benefits | foreclosure crisis of 2007-2008 disproportionately affected minority/low-income communities due to aggressive marketing of subprime mortgage – preyed on unsophisticated borrowers with high-risk loans (causing default, foreclosure, & economic catastrophe)
Fair Housing Act of 1968 – prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, sex, religion, disability, family status, and national origin | enforced by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and theU.S. Department of Justice
‘Urban Renewal’ and Housing Act of 1949 – led to the destruction of dilapidated housing, displacing African American residents and businesses | federal govt’s use of eminent domain to condemn property for urban renewal projects was UPHELD by SCOTUS in Berman v. Parker (1954) | James Baldwin – criticized urban renewal as “Negro removal,” highlighting its discriminatory impact | Great Migration of African Americans from the South also impacted housing dynamics
Federal Housing Assistance Programs: HUD administers over a hundred unique programs, such as public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers, | Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program – federal tax incentive program, supports the development of affordable housing, | Examples include Section 8 vouchers, public housing, housing for the elderly and disabled, rural rental assistance, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and LIHTC | All HUD programs are means-tested, and tenant rents are typically set at 30% of their income, though formulas may vary | Unit-Based Subsidies: subsidies to the property rather than the tenant, benefiting the unit’s occupants; Section 202 (elderly) and Section 811 (disabled) housing | Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity (MTO) aim to facilitate relocations from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods/”deghettoization”
DEPARTMENT OF HOUS. AND URBAN DEV. v. RUCKER – affirmed that leases can allow eviction for drug-related activity by household members or guests, regardless of the tenant’s knowledge.
Education + School-to-Prison Pipeline
School to Prison Pipeline – policies and practices that push students, particularly those from marginalized communities, out of schools and into the criminal justice system | Zero-tolerance policies – initially implemented to address school violence, have resulted in a surge of suspensions and expulsions for trivial incidents, disproportionately affecting students of color | criminalization of normal childhood behavior | use of School Resource Officers (SROs) instead of counselors – led to increased arrests and referrals to law enforcement for minor infractions | Judith Scully – reforms are needed in disciplinary policies, SRO training, and the evaluation of school-based arrests to ensure equitable treatment of all students
Criminalization of Poverty
Quasi-citizenship: Mass incarceration creates a marginalized class of quasi-citizens who face long-term negative consequences even after completing their sentences
Vera Cheeks case study – faced severe consequences for a minor traffic violation due to her inability to pay fines immediately
Anti-homeless laws: Colonial-era “vagrancy laws” in the American colonies criminalized homelessness
8th A and Sleeping/Eating Bans and Anti-Camping Ordinances: Martin v. City of Boise (2018) – held that criminalizing sleeping outdoors for homeless individuals WITHOUT alternative shelter violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; unavoidable consequence of homelessness and no indoor option available | Grants Pass v. Johnson (pending 2024) – Challengers argue that the 9th Circuit’s decisions align with Supreme Court precedent Martin (2018), protecting homeless individuals from punishment for involuntary status when shelter is unavailable
1st A and Begging Bans: Reed v. Town of Gilbert – clarified that strict scrutiny applies not only to laws restricting a speaker’s viewpoint but also to laws restricting an idea or message | Norton v. City of Springfield (2015) – Reed effectively eliminates the distinction between content regulation and subject-matter regulation, requiring a compelling justification for any law distinguishing one kind of speech from another based on its meaning
4th and 14th A Challenges to Property Seizures: Lavan v. City of LA (2012) – Court denied the city’s appeal, emphasizing that homeless individuals’ property rights are not exempt from constitutional protections; ruling does not hinder the city’s efforts to address homelessness but ensures compliance with constitutional standards regarding property rights and due process.
Rhode Island’s Homeless Bill of Rights (2012): bill acknowledges the growing homelessness crisis due to economic hardship and housing shortages | cites the Rhode Island State Constitution’s commitment to protecting the rights of all citizens | affirms Freedom of Movement, Equal Treatment, Employment Rights, Access to Medical Care, Voting Rights, Privacy and Confidentiality, and Property Rights | establishes comprehensive protections for homeless individuals in Rhode Island, ensuring their equal treatment and access to essential services | Sarah Rankin – While some critics argue that the law fails to address the most pressing needs of homeless individuals and merely reaffirms existing rights, others view it as a significant step
Michelle Alexander, New Jim Crow – mechanisms of mass incarceration, detailing how the War on Drugs disproportionately targets black men through phases including police roundup, biased convictions, extensive regulation during formal control, and post-release invisible punishments, perpetuating marginalization and creating a lifelong undercaste | Ferguson Police Dept (2015) – Revenue-Focused Policing: prioritize revenue generation over public safety, resulting in unconstitutional policing practices and court procedures that lack due process, particularly affecting the African American community
Litigation for end to Wealth Extraction: Bearden v. Georgia (1983) – Court held that revoking probation solely due to failure to pay without considering reasons or alternatives violated fundamental fairness
Unequal Access to Justice: The ‘Justice Gap’
Deborah Rhode – “equal justice under law” is widely proclaimed but often violated in practice | Civil Legal Services began with individual lawyers providing ad hoc services, later evolving into more structured assistance through private charities | Problems with Legal Aid Organizations: lack of funding/resources, strict eligibility criteria, and moralistic policies that often excluded certain types of cases and clients
Attack/Restrictions on Legal Aid Services: Republicans sought to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) | Congress imposed stringent restrictions on recipients of LSC funding, including prohibitions on cases involving abortion, redistricting, or voting rights |
Audi Alteram Partem and the Adversary System: Stuart Hampshire’s principle (hear the other side) is fundamental to procedural justice, requiring genuine engagement and consideration of opposing arguments | However, when legal doctrines enable well-funded parties to silence their adversaries’ lawyers, it undermines the fairness of the adversary system, turning it into a mechanism of procedural injustice
Silencing Doctrines: Silencing doctrines, including statutes, rules, and judicial decisions, restrict the funding and activity of progressive public-interest lawyers, limiting their ability to represent marginalized groups |1996 restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) significantly curtailed the ability of legal-services lawyers to take on certain cases and represent entire classes of clients, undermining their effectiveness | compel lawyers to decline cases
Civil Rights Fee Cases: Supreme Court decisions, such as Evans v. Jeff D. (1986) and Buckhannon v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (2001), have curtailed statutorily authorized attorneys’ fees in civil rights and environmental cases, creating additional silencing doctrines
LSC v. Velazquez (2001) – Issue: Does the funding restriction on the Legal Services Corporation, preventing attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend or challenge existing welfare law, violate the First Amendment? Holding: Yes, Court ruled that the funding provision limiting arguments legal services attorneys could make for indigent welfare claimants VIOLATED the First Amendment by regulating private speech and shielding federal law from legitimate judicial challenge.