> Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” becau

> Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids. The Ninth Circuit pursued this line of thinking below and in Martin, but this Court already rejected it in Powell v. Texas. In Powell, the Court confronted a defendant who had been convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime to “get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place.” Like the plaintiffs here, Powell argued that his drunkenness was an “involuntary” byproduct of his status as an alcoholic. The Court did not agree that Texas’s law effectively criminalized Powell’s status as an alcoholic... This case is no different. If you told me this quote was from an Onion article, I'd say "well obviously."