4 ms·
SCOTUS interpreted[0] the right of free movement to make "owes less to people who move to Seattle without housing" illegal. We can't fix chronic homelessness b
by coryrc 5y ago
SCOTUS interpreted[0] the right of free movement to make "owes less to people who move to Seattle without housing" illegal.
We can't fix chronic homelessness because the remedies are either illegal at a federal level (privileging locals, asylums) or against the sensibilities of voters in the regions where it is concentrated (prosecuting illegal drug use).
[0] I can't remember the ruling now, was a city in the NE IIRC
- actually_a_dog 5y agoEdwards v. California? Saenz v. Roe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe
- wahern 5y agoProbably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson > The ruling in the case invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance.
- coryrc 5y agoYes, thank you!
- coryrc 5y agoWow, surprising Saenz v Roe occurred when Shapiro v Thompson had already been decided. But, yeah, all these cases make any state with improved welfare benefits a migration target for unproductive people. Classic game theory situation.