Anatole France — 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.'

Let's see what the 'supremes' say.

Send the bill to their ... doorway, tent ??

By any chance provide an indoors for them to sleep in?

Or are they supposed to sleep in trees, or what?

Typical NIMBY. "We don't want the homeless because they're all druggies or mentally ill". So the article highlights an 80 year old man and a woman who is blind in one eye. Where are they going to go?
Shelters have pretty strict rules because they don't want transients camping out, claiming beds there like a free hotel - got to leave by a certain time, can't leave your property if you work, can't wait around to grab the bed you want if there's no place else to go - Shelters are definitely not set up for the elderly or disabled as semi-permanent housing for places that don't have enough charity beds in nursing homes or poor houses.
Oh, the local constituency at large probably say (privately, of course) "Why doesn't Gramp's kids or grandkids take him in? Why doesn't that Homeless-Diabetic-begger-in-a-wheelchair just go to the VA, move in with family or friends - or just die already?"

Because at one time, Gramps and Homeless Diabetic was a neighbor y'all didn't f***ing care to keep an eye on as things started to spiral out of control and they ended up losing their normal housing. Because maybe they were cross or mean all the time for some reason. Because maybe their family is scattered all over the country, the spouse died, and they have no one to move in with.
Because through bad luck, bad health, or bad decisions, it doesn't matter which, they ended up on the streets. And your community decided not to take action as they noted "evictions and foreclosures" are up and never thought to wonder "where do those people go?". It's like Y'all believe inconvenient people "just disappear" once they lose the roof over their head, whether or not they still have a job and friends in town.
They have to stay somewhere for enough time to either get back on their feet, or to find some permanent place that can take care of their remaining time with a modicum of dignity, even if it's just a one or two room tiny home where they can safely sleep, relax, and store the few possessions they have left, and maybe even have a pet or human companionship.

American society is so punitive on poverty. It's almost like the "Rugged, Responsible, Individualists" are terrified of being alone, poor, and invisible within the social hierarchy. So the homeless become another American Scapegoat.

Haele

There are lots of charities as well as both public and private outreach organizations that are willing to help someone "get back on their feet." The truth is, if you're homeless, you've probably already missed some opportunities to save yourself, like declaring bankruptcy. But even then, if you're looking for medical treatment and a way back, and are serious about securing some form of income for yourself, there are lots of avenues. Yes, you can always find some cases that slipped through the cracks, but most people willing to pursue genuine drug/psychiatric treatment and secure a job will not remain on the streets.

It's the "permanent place to spend their time in dignity" part that causes the issue, because let's be honest, that's what we are really referring to when we speak of the "homeless problem": the chronically homeless who, for either psychiatric, health, drug, or personal reasons have decided that spending the rest of their days living in public spaces is the path forward for them.

A "permanent" place for these people is either a) an institution b) jail or c) a free hotel. Despite a lot of dancing and hand-waiving, homeless advocates usually are looking for c), and the rest of society just isn't going to go for that.

There are homeless thieves, there are homeless drug addicts, there are the homeless mentally ill, there are homeless who simply are those once referred to as "bums". These groups are by and large unemployable because who would hire them? Then there are those who are homeless because they simply cannot afford a place to live, have no good references and bad credit scores and what landlord would choose to rent to them in the first place? But those who are homeless are a diverse group for many reasons.

My Wisconsin city of 50,000 has a homeless problem that never existed 5 years ago--a bell that has been rung that will never be unrung. It might have had the resources to properly handle the homeless from this area, but when the problem first began and the big federal dollars were flowing freely the word went out across the state to come here and a place in a motel will be found to stay which quickly became a place with sex and drug trafficking and the "decent" homeless were afraid to stay there. Then after that winter, the motel was so trashed it had to be closed and much of it gutted in order to rebuild. Well, that went well...not!

The following winter the city gave the homeless a large city park on the Mississippi, just walking distance from the downtown and social service offices as well as a supermarket. It degenerated into a tent city squalor with homeless stealing from other homeless as well as drug abuse. After that winter, the once beautiful park needed to be bulldozed. But out of any new ideas for next winter, the city is thinking of doing for the winter of'24-'25.
City residents feel disappointed and betrayed and who can blame them as they dream of the good old days 5 or 6 years ago. Then there is the resentment of the homeless who get away with many things that result in at least a fine or ticket for city residents. Myself, a retired and poor senior, have had my bicycle stolen when parked by my front door at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon in August when I had seen it just 15 minutes earlier, a place where it had be safely left for awhile for 30 years.

I don't have an answer for homelessness other than homes, but the thieves, drug addicts, and mentally ill will still be here.

It should be a state/local issue because it's quite complicated.

I'm afraid the SC will just reverse the 9th Circuit without looking at the complexities. And that's really a shame because the answer would not be yes or no.

One time, I put up a 4 by 8 campaign sign. Two days later, it was gone. Checked to see if a business had thrown it in a ditch. I walk down the ditch and eventually the ditch was full of 4 by 8 campaign signs and shopping carts. It was a homeless camp. Those signs cost $40. If they want them when a campaign is over, I'm fine. But we were working hard to get this candidate elected with limited funding.

I couldn't find my candidate's sign in the hoard. (So I assumed the business threw it away)

The next day, the sign appeared in the middle of the road. (They were watching me)

it's OK with the Supreme Court, right?