It’s Been Two Years Since the Supreme Court Made Homelessness a Crime. The Result Speaks for Itself. 60%

By Jesse Rabinowitz0%

6/27/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.2% saturation with 418 hits. Analysis detected 3,851 faulty-reasoning hits from 886 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.8% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,912 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.30% of the article peer group.

Two years ago this week, in the landmark Johnson v. 
Grants Pass decision, the Supreme Court gave cities and states the green light to make it a crime to sleep outside, even when there is nowhere else for people to go. 
To be clear, laws that make it a crime to experience homelessness are as old as this country, but the Supreme Court’s ruling and Trump’s war on our unhoused neighbors poured gasoline on an already destructive fire. 
As a homeless street-outreach worker in Washington, D.C., I saw firsthand that treating homelessness as a crime actively makes homelessness worse. 
When my clients were displaced, they had treasured photos of deceased loved ones destroyed, lifesaving medication thrown away, and bikes and uniforms needed for work tossed into trash trucks. 
These evictions crushed their belongings and their humanity. 
But I also saw that housing can and does solve homelessness. 
When the fortunate few clients who received a prized housing voucher were able to successfully move from homelessness into housing, they could reconnect with their families, get healthier, and live with the dignity we all want and need. 
Grants Pass, the Oregon town behind the Supreme Court ruling, said they could not solve homelessness because their hands were tied with unrealistic burdens, like not arresting people for using a blanket in the middle of the winter. 
But two years after the Supreme Court untied their hands, Grants Pass has not solved homelessness, and things have gone from bad to worse. 
Grants Pass has forced homeless people into fenced-off camps under threat of arrest, then excluded them from these camps for arbitrary violations, like having a tent that is one foot too long or struggling to move their things every four days. 
Homeless folks in Grants Pass—who, by and large, are from Grants Pass—face constant surveillance, threats, and harassment. 
In the two years since the Johnson v. 
Grants Pass ruling, the National Homelessness Law Center has documented over 350 cities that have passed laws making it a crime to be homeless. 
Additionally, 11 states have passed statewide anti-homelessness laws. 
None of these laws address the lack of affordable housing, the main driver of homelessness. 
Instead, they make it easier for politicians to move homeless residents away from the public view and for cities to close their eyes to the reality of our nation’s growing housing crisis. 
The increase in anti-homeless laws and rhetoric is not an accident; it is the result of a well-funded and coordinated campaign orchestrated in part by the Cicero Institute. 
The Cicero Institute, to put it simply, is the Heritage Foundation of homelessness. 
They leverage their relative anonymity and billionaire funders to pass cookie-cutter laws in states across the country that make it a crime to be homeless. 
Most recently, the Cicero Institute supported a Louisiana law that not only makes it a crime to sleep outside, but also paves the way to push homeless people into forced treatment and unpaid labor. 
Cicero also supports Utah’s plan to create a remote, government-run facility that will hold up to 1,300 people experiencing homelessness. 
And while these laws hurt us all, they hurt Black, brown, queer, immigrant, Indigenous, and disabled communities first and worst. 
The Cicero Institute’s attacks on our unhoused neighbors are not just ideologically driven; there is also a clear profit motive. 
Recently, we at the National Homelessness Law Center published new research that shows Cicero and their founder—Palantir co-founder and investor Joe Lonsdale—have connections to the private prison industry and financial ties to industries poised to profit from the criminalization of homelessness. 
The Trump administration’s attacks on homeless people are taken straight from the authoritarian playbook. 
Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have started by targeting homeless people. 
These regimes begin by dehumanizing and stereotyping homeless people, testing out public reaction to stripping rights and escalating erosion of civil liberties because they believe public sentiment is with them. 
This leads to scapegoating homeless people for broader societal problems, like politicians’ failure to make rent cheaper, and clearing people from public view by making it a crime to sleep outside. 
This dehumanization leads to the stripping of rights, which paves the way for forced labor and detention camps. 
Just as people are rightly outraged about the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants and queer folks, they should also be outraged at these attacks on homeless people, understanding that they are a harbinger of greater authoritarianism to come. 
We know what starts with homeless folks will spread to other targets—unless we work together to stop these attacks right now. 
The Johnson v. 
Grants Pass decision opened the floodgates of anti-homeless laws and made conditions markedly worse for homeless people across the country. 
But this fight is far from over. 
Advocates are beating back policies that make it a crime to be homeless and fighting to affirm the rights of their homeless neighbors. 
This fight reveals a truth that terrifies those in power: Organized people can and will beat back authoritarianism when we take collective action. 
And when we fight together, we can build a country where everybody—regardless of where they come from, what they do, who they love, or what they look like—can live with the housing, support, and dignity we all deserve. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.1%Jesse Rabinowitz: 10.8%Slate: 4.2%Confirmation Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Jesse Rabinowitz: 3.3%Slate: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.2%This article: 2.6%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 2.7%Jesse Rabinowitz: 1.4%Slate: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.7%This article: 0.6%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.6%Slate: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.6%This article: 4.9%Jesse Rabinowitz: 12.8%Slate: 5.9%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 1.6%Slate: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 1.7%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.8%Jesse Rabinowitz: 2.1%Slate: 1.1%Optimism Bias13.8%This article: 5.2%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 42.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 15.1%Slate: 9.8%Negativity Bias42.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error16.5%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 3.7%Slate: 1.5%In-Group Bias2.3%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.3%This article: 8.6%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 2.7%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.0%Recency Bias12.8%This article: 1.4%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 2.5%Slate: 1.8%Ad Hominem2.3%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 2.1%Slate: 0.9%Straw Man4.3%This article: 9.7%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 2.8%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.7%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 20.2%Jesse Rabinowitz: 10.2%Slate: 1.8%Slippery Slope20.2%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 7.8%Slate: 7.8%Hasty Generalization12.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.6%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 46.8%Jesse Rabinowitz: 18.9%Slate: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion46.8%This article: 8.4%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.3%Slate: 1.2%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 29.8%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)29.8%This article: 4.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Tu Quoque4.3%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.1%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Composition/Division1.1%This article: 18.4%Jesse Rabinowitz: 1.2%Slate: 3.3%Anecdotal18.4%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.1%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.1%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.8%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy2.8%This article: 1.7%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.4%Unattributed Quote1.7%This article: 2.4%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 47.2%Jesse Rabinowitz: 4.5%Slate: 19.6%Biased Writer Voice47.2%This article: 28.3%Jesse Rabinowitz: 11.7%Slate: 2.4%Indoctrination28.3%This article: 17.6%Jesse Rabinowitz: 5.8%Slate: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Rabinowitz: 0.0%Slate: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

886 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.3%attributed speech821writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNational Homelessness Law Center • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageNational Homelessness Law Center • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-50.9 ptsWriter: 50.9%National Homelessness Law Center: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-30.6 ptsWriter: 30.6%National Homelessness Law Center: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-19.0 ptsWriter: 19.0%National Homelessness Law Center: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%National Homelessness Law Center: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%National Homelessness Law Center: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.