Home is both a physical place and a concept. In the popular imagination, home is a refuge, a shelter, a place of safety and belonging. It is where we come from and where we return.

We fill our homes with the things most precious to us, surrounding ourselves with the sights of beloved possessions, the sounds of our favorite music, and the aroma of our favorite foods.  Those who have always had a home often take it for granted. Like breathing, it is something we fundamentally rely upon but rarely think about.

To be homeless in our society means that not only were your needs out of reach, but also that your network of family and friends, and whatever “safety net” of social programs were available have been exhausted.

Being unhoused means that you are at the mercy of the weather, of law enforcement, and of your community – it creates vulnerability in so many ways that it can be difficult to imagine for those who have always been housed. To be unhoused means you don’t even have the dignity and privacy to engage in essential activities, like sleeping or using the bathroom, things that would be considered a crime if done in public.

Despite the importance of a home and the vulnerability of being unhoused, the United States Supreme Court has now made life even more dangerous for the 650,000 unhoused Americans and increased the risks for millions more who are living on the edge and housing-insecure.

Many like to think that homelessness is rare, a problem on the margins. In fact, it is a social problem that does not exist in every society, yet it is increasingly common throughout the country. Between 2012-2022, homelessness grew by 67% in Maine alone.

The growing number of unhoused people is the result of broad economic forces and policy issues, not of individual behaviors or decision making. While our elected officials and policymakers allude to the “housing crisis,” they have done very little to create affordable housing options or stand up a robust shelter system here in Maine. Instead, the focus has been on continuing to blame, punish, and shame homeless people themselves, continuing a decade’s long trend of attempting – and failing – to punish people out of poverty.

Several towns and cities throughout Maine are imposing criminal penalties for all kinds of non-criminal behavior: sleeping, standing, sitting, and even “loafing”. Most recently, Bangor passed an ordinance banning people from being on certain medians and imposing fines of up to $2,500, even if they are not creating a safety hazard. One of the problems with these laws is that they punish all kinds of legal activities, including protected free speech and free expression. They also penalize people for being homeless in public, in an effort to push them into the shadows rather than address the reasons they are homeless to begin with.

Ordinances targeting unhoused people are nothing new and not unique to Maine.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed an ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, that banned unhoused people from sleeping on public property, even when shelters were full. The ban also prohibited people from using bedding, pillows, sleeping bags, or something as simple as a sheet of cardboard.

The lower court ruled these restrictions violated the Eighth Amendment’s protections from cruel and unusual punishment by removing unhoused people’s ability “to take…rudimentary precautions to protect themselves from the elements.” Remember, Grants Pass sought to punish people for trying to survive outside even when shelters were full and they had no other options.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed that decision and opened the door for states and cities to punish poor people simply for existing in public spaces, people who literally have nowhere else to go.

However, just because the court has ruled that cities can pursue punitive policies does not mean that they must or should.

Additionally, unhoused people are still entitled to protections under state and federal law, including due process, freedom from discrimination, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Fines and jail time will not change the circumstances unhoused people face, because they do not address the root causes of the housing crisis.

Housing is a deep and abiding human need, and ignoring the issue causes grave harm to our communities. Despite this cruel ruling, our state and local leaders still have a choice. Instead of attempting to punish people out of poverty, they must address the root causes immediately and vigorously, ensuring access to shelter, health care, and education for all in need.

Today, the Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower courts where anti-abortion extremists will continue to fight to strip pregnant people of the basic right to emergency care, including when their life is at risk.

While the court’s decision temporarily restores the ability of doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act —EMTALA— by dismissing the case without affirming once and for all that pregnant people have a right to the emergency abortion care they need to protect their health and lives, the court continues to put pregnant patients at unnecessary risk.

Below, we break down why the case matters, and what happens next.

EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations. Since it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the federal government–across Democratic and Republican administrations–has consistently recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it. For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has been a crucial tool in guaranteeing the right to emergency care for pregnant patients in need.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, extremist politicians still tried to prevent people experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms. In this case, Idaho, which has a near total abortion ban, went all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to criminalize emergency abortions required under EMTALA.

The ACLU and the Cooley Law Firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of EMTALA. We explained that the law clearly requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care, regardless of state abortion bans like Idaho’s and others, and that pregnant people cannot be excluded from EMTALA’s protections. The court’s concurring opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in part, echoes the arguments we laid out in our brief.

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to affirm that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so. The court’s refusal to safeguard the right to emergency abortion care–and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care –puts pregnant patients at risk and devalues equality under the law.

Two Years Post-Roe: Life in the Aftermath

Two Years Post-Roe: Life in the Aftermath

On this episode, we’re going back into our archives to share an episode that unfortunately still has deep resonance today. Last year, we asked you what a year without Roe has been like in your lives and you responded in droves. Today, with abortio...

On this episode, we’re going back into our archives to share an episode that unfortunately still has deep resonance today. Last year, we asked you what a year without Roe has been like in your lives and you responded in droves. Today, with abortio...

Visit this episode

Importantly, the court’s order does nothing to stop the chaos and confusion unleashed by abortion bans across the country, which still prevent providers from giving appropriate medical care to patients when they need it most. While the court’s order does provide a temporary reprieve for pregnant patients in Idaho facing medical emergencies, it also allows extremist politicians in the case to continue to fight to put doctors in jail simply for providing essential care. And, alarmingly, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion that provides a roadmap for just how they would strip pregnant people of the right to emergency abortion care should this case return to the Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion also indicates a willingness to endorse an extreme strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person, and could lead not only to a national abortion ban, but bans on other forms of reproductive health care like fertility treatment and birth control.

This case proves that this battle is far from over. Extremist politicians are coming for our reproductive freedom and will not stop until abortion, including emergency abortion, is banned in all 50 states. They already went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life-and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again if we let them.

At the ACLU, we’ll continue to use every tool at our disposal to fight attacks on our bodily autonomy. We urge Congress to act now and pass federal protections for abortion rights that will end extreme bans in states and protect access to care nationwide.