Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

5 

Syllabus 

tariness test has created intolerable uncertainty for them.  By extend-
ing Robinson beyond the narrow class of pure status crimes, the Ninth 
Circuit has created a right that has proven “impossible” for judges to
delineate except “by fiat.”  Powell, 392 U. S., at 534.  As Justice Mar-
shall  anticipated  in  Powell,  the  Ninth  Circuit’s  rules  have  produced 
confusion  and  they  have  interfered  with  “essential  considerations  of 
federalism,” by taking from the people and their elected leaders diffi-
cult  questions  traditionally  “thought  to  be  the[ir]  province.”    Id.,  at 
535–536.  Pp. 24–34.

(e) Homelessness is complex.  Its causes are many.  So may be the 
public policy responses required to address it.  The question this case
presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges pri-
mary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those re-
sponses.  A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the col-
lective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to
handle” a pressing social question like homelessness.  Robinson, 370 
U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting).  The Constitution’s Eighth Amend-
ment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize fed-
eral judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the Ameri-
can people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy. 
Pp. 34–35. 

72 F. 4th 868, reversed and remanded. 

GORSUCH,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  THOMAS,  ALITO,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting 
opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.