Implicit in the City of Grants Pass v Oregon is the decision that there is no right to remain in public space, at least as far as I can infer.
Presumably, it is not contained in the broader meaning of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
For more:
- Rights in Public Spaces.
This chapter discusses the rights of low-income persons, including those who “look poor” or homeless, to travel, to become members of a community, and to use public spaces, such as streets, parks, libraries, and post offices. Many localities have adopted “quality of life” regulations that restrict and even criminalize acts that are innocent when done in the privacy of one’s home, such as sleeping or eating, but become illegal when done in public. The chapter sets out the constitutional right to travel from state to state and within a state, and describes the practical and legal barriers that exist to the actualization of that right, such as the absence of public transportation or not having money to buy a car. Attention is given to the constitutional status of residency requirements and how they impact efforts to obtain better housing and schooling. It explores permissible limits on rights to use public spaces, and protections that may be invoked in many typical encounters with the police, such as demands for identification cards or the seizure of possessions temporarily left in a park. Practical advice is given about library services and mail delivery, as well as how to get licenses for commercial activities that make use of public spaces, including street vending.
- “You Can’t Be Here”: The Homeless and the Right to Remain in Public Space.
In cities throughout the country, homeless individuals are continuously relocated from place to place and faced with the quandary that by engaging in basic life activities they are breaking the law. Many of these individuals and their legal advocates have argued that laws prohibiting the homeless from sleeping or sitting down in public make it effectively impossible for them to exist, violating the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments and the right to travel derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the vast majority of courts have rejected these arguments because they do not readily fit into existing doctrines.
- What is The Right to Public Space?
The right to public space is not among the more conventional human rights such as the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to adequate housing, or the freedom of religion or expression. Public space is usually guaranteed by default under the right to freedom of speech or the right to peaceful assembly and association. Still, some countries have made the right to public space explicit in their constitution. Colombia was the first. The 1991 Constitution states, “It is the duty of the state to protect the integrity of public space and its assignment to common use, which has priority over the individual interest.” This constitution was drafted during a time when Bogota, Colombia’s capital, was considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to political violence and large swathes of the country were controlled by guerilla groups and drug cartels. Citizens were on edge and the public spaces throughout the country were fractured. By guaranteeing the right to public space, the State has made a commitment to protecting the social fabric of the nation.
- The Right to Public Space.
The rights in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend, practically, on having public spaces in which to exercise them, including the right to work (whether traveling to work, setting up shop on the sidewalk, lining up as a day laborer, or advertising one’s services), the right to form and join trade unions, freedom of conscience and religion (whether men praying on the sidewalk outside an overflowing mosque, the faithful street preaching and evangelizing, or observers publicly displaying their affiliation through what they wear) and the right to rest and leisure.