William Canna-bass<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://kolektiva.social/@igd_news" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>igd_news</span></a></span> So, I read the opinion, and basically it agreed with the Powell decision in TX, in that you can criminalize acts but not statuses. According to <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a>, the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/8thAmendment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>8thAmendment</span></a> only pertains to punishments after conviction. So, the houseless absolutely have standing to sue for the fines and imprisonment punishments as a result of these laws. I would also argue, as the dissent points out, that the law is being applied unequally, a violation of the <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/14thAmendment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>14thAmendment</span></a>.</p>