vagrancy laws: Live & Latest News Updates : Vimarsana.com
ticketed him for camping on public property. the story would've ended there except a huge corporate law fir in new york city took an interest and the case on the other side of the country. typically, their wall street banks and prominent democratic officeholders for the firm wanted to change the vagrancy laws to increase homelessness. why did they want that? we don't know. they filed a lawsuit against th city of boise. that suit mated to the ninth circuit court of appeals in 201 the court declared that cities have no right to criminalize homelessness. in fact, the court ruled cities have an obligation to provide free housing to the homeless at the public expense. the supreme court later upheld the ruling card it was known as martin versus boise and it had exactly the effect intended. the city officials across the country no longer had an obligation to protect the publi and public spaces from drug addicts who decided to live in them. at the same time, politician suddenly had access to a massiv
CountryInterestStoryWall-street-banksSideOfficeholdersCaseLawFirCampingFirmPublic-property
on public property. that was the law. the story would have ended there except at a huge corporate law firm in new york city called latham and watkins took an interest in the case on the other side of the country. now typically laitman watkins represents wall street banks and prominent democratic officeholders. but the firm wanted to change vagrancy laws to increase homeless. what did they want that we don't know. but the firm filed a lawsuit basil humphrey's behalf against the city of boise. that suit made it to the ninth circuit court of appeals. in twenty eighteen, the court declared cities have no right to criminalize homelessness in fact, the court ruled cities have an obligation to provide free housing to the homeless at public expense. the supreme court later upheld that ruling. the case was known as martin versus boise and it had exactly the effect that laitman watkins intended. city officials across the country no longer had an obligation to protect the public and public spaces from drug addicts who decided to live in them. at the same time, politicians suddenly had access to
CountryNew-yorkCaseLawInterestSideStoryOfficeholdersLaw-firmPublic-propertyLatham-and-watkinsWall-street-banks