To understand Martin v Boise (MvB), you need to understand a few concepts.
Sleep: Sleep’s a state of deep rest. It’s considered “involuntary.” The body forces you to sleep to live, regardless of your will.
Camping: Camping is setting up a temporary household for an indefinite period of time. It’s “voluntary:” done with conscious will.
What the courts in MvB considered was the inalienable and “involuntary” right of human beings to sleep. They determined that A: Humans must sleep. B: The homeless have no private property. Therefore C: The homeless must sleep on public property.
They ruled that Boise’s (anti) sit/lie/sleep ordinances were unconstitutional and unenforceable. They did make an exception where adequate shelter space was available.
Did camping come up? Only in that the city of Boise claimed “sleeping in a blanket” was camping. The courts recognized the difference between sleeping and camping, and ruled that sleeping in a blanket is just sleeping. The courts didn’t address the right to set up a temporary household on public spaces, adequate shelter space or not.
I’m not arguing that if it’s 35 degrees out and raining, a campsite is or isn’t necessary for survival. I’m saying it’s incorrect to claim that Martin v. Boise ruled on camping when it only ruled on sleeping.
Martin v Boise didn’t rewrite the Declaration of Independence to read, “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and shelter space from any town we wander into or camping on public property is legal and free.”
— Peter Bridge, Glenn