Camping ban case

A fascinating and potentially important case from the 9th circuit involving Oregon's so-called camping ban.  Pits the wicked problem of homelessness in cities around the country with the capacity and efficacy of judicial intervention.  The specific legal question is whether these restrictions reflect cruel and unusual punishment.  Might seem like a stretch at first glance, but the opinions in the panel decision and, as well, Judge O'Scannlain's effort to convince the 9th circuit to hear the case en banc are carefully reasoned and worth a close read.

As with many contemporary issues of social policy, including housing policy, in its myriad dimensions, it seems hard to imagine the courts constructing a rubric that gives local governments clear guidance and assistance in dealing with problems that are hugely vexing, and given the magnitude of the homelessness crisis (not unrelated to the evolving situation involving migrants), quite urgent.  Is this the best use of the federal courts, given the local nature of the problem?  And, looking at this issue through an originalist lens, what true utility is the original public meaning of an amendment that could not well contemplate the problem to which these local anti-camping ordinances are directed?  

I suppose the smart money is on a SCOTUS reversal.  But what questions with the Justices asks and what opinion will the Court write to illuminate the complex issues involved and give shape to the question of the modern police power's utility and limits in a society with social divisions and civic problems?