Later this summer time, the Superb Courtroom will rule on Town of Grants Go v. Johnson, one of the crucial essential circumstances on homelessness to come back up in a very long time. The courtroom will come to a decision whether or not anyone will also be fined, jailed, or ticketed for napping or tenting in a public area once they’re homeless and feature nowhere else to head. In oral arguments, the justices engaged in a full of life debate in regards to the central prison problems: Are states criminalizing folks for the act of napping outdoor or for his or her standing of being homeless? Does arresting an unhoused particular person for napping outdoor represent merciless and strange punishment? Must federal justices also be addressing this factor, or is it extra suitable to go away as much as native officers? Something this landmark choice is not going to actually cope with—the real drawback of homelessness.
On this episode of Radio Atlantic, we communicate to Atlantic author and Excellent on Paper host Jerusalem Demsas about Town of Grants Go v. Johnson and what it will or would possibly not remedy. Homelessness has exploded because the Eighties, most commonly in towns the place housing prices have long past up. Criminalizing—or now not criminalizing—folks napping in public does now not exchange the truth that many of us have nowhere to sleep, and that individuals who do have puts to sleep can’t assist however realize that their towns have an enormous homelessness drawback.
Concentrate to the dialog right here:
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Hanna Rosin: Here’s a elementary American thought: If one thing is prohibited, it must be similarly unlawful for everybody.
So, napping: Are you able to arrest anyone for napping in a public area? That means—may just town officers conform to arrest individuals who go to sleep in public, so long as they are saying the regulation applies to everybody, similarly, within the spirit of equity?
That’s one essential factor that the Superb Courtroom is making an attempt to determine this summer time.
[U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson]
Sonya Sotomayor: And the law enforcement officials testified that that signifies that if a stargazer desires to take a blanket or a napping bag out at night time to look at the celebs and falls asleep, you don’t arrest them. You don’t arrest small children who’ve blankets over them. You don’t arrest people who find themselves napping at the seashore, as I generally tend to do if I’ve been there some time. You simplest arrest individuals who don’t have a 2d house. Is that proper?
Theane Evangelis: Smartly—
Sotomayor: Who don’t have a house?
Evangelis: So, no. Those rules are typically acceptable. They practice to everybody.
Sotomayor: Yeah, that’s what you wish to have to mention.
[Music]
Rosin: That is Radio Atlantic. I’m Hanna Rosin. And these days, we’re speaking about one of the crucial essential circumstances for the rights of the unhoused in a very long time.
[U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson]
John Roberts: We’ll listen arguments first this morning in Case 23-175, Town of Grants Go v. Johnson. Ms. Evangelis?
Evangelis: Mr. Leader Justice, and would possibly it please the courtroom. Like towns national, Grants Go—
Rosin: In Grants Go v. Johnson, the Superb Courtroom will rule later this summer time on whether or not anyone will also be fined, jailed, or ticketed for napping or tenting in a public area once they’re homeless.
Are they being punished as a result of they’re napping—the motion? Or are they being punished as a result of they’re homeless? And will have to towns be loose to make those choices for themselves?
[U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson]
John Roberts: Municipalities have competing priorities. I imply, what if there are lead pipes within the water? Do you construct the homeless refuge, or do you deal with the lead pipes? What if there aren’t—isn’t sufficient fireplace coverage? Which one do you prioritize? Why would you suppose that those 9 individuals are the most productive folks to pass judgement on and weigh the ones coverage judgments?
Rosin: So in some way, Grants Go shines a large, vibrant highlight on the actual factor, which is that many town governments have made a chain of selections about housing over the previous few a long time that experience led to a rising quantity of people that have nowhere to sleep.
Jerusalem Demsas: We’ve put numerous energy into the arms of native governments to come to a decision who can and will’t be someplace, and what types of folks can and will exist somewhere else.
Rosin: That is Atlantic author Jerusalem Demsas. She thinks so much about what’s at the back of our coverage dilemmas—housing is one in all her obsessions. She additionally hosts The Atlantic’s new coverage podcast, Excellent on Paper.
Demsas: And so this type of exclusion purposes in such a lot of other invisible techniques. There are a lot of these invisible jurisdictional traces which might be affecting conduct, like what college used to be allowed to be constructed the place twenty years in the past. And thus, when your oldsters had been searching for a spot to reside close to a college, they typically had been interested in a undeniable set of neighborhoods. We call to mind those as loose alternatives, however they’re in truth the selections which might be passed all the way down to us via executive coverage from a long time in the past.
Rosin: And in the case of housing, those sequence of alternatives have created inconceivable scenarios. Town governments be interested in conserving the order. Native electorate want someplace to sleep. Those competing pursuits had been scuffling with it out in a string of essential courtroom circumstances, like Martin v. Boise.
Demsas: If so, six homeless folks sued Boise, Idaho, on account of an anti-camping ordinance. They usually claimed that their constitutional rights had been being violated as a result of they had been being informed that they couldn’t sleep in public, however there used to be nowhere for them to sleep. There weren’t housing shelters or issues at capability obtainable for them. They usually mentioned it is a violation in their civil rights, and the 9th Circuit agreed with them.
And because then, the 9th Circuit, after all, it covers a handful of states however actually large ones which might be at fear right here, like California, as an example, which has the biggest homeless inhabitants within the nation. However, after all, different courts additionally concentrate and cite Martin v. Boise, as smartly. So this has turn out to be essential to the entire nation, although this used to be simply the 9th Circuit case. So this has come earlier than the Superb Courtroom earlier than, and they’ve declined to hear it.
However this time, in Grants Go v. Johnson, they’d oral argument. And what’s at stake this is mainly what types of issues represent merciless and strange punishment. And already there’s leeway given to native governments to have cheap time restrictions and position restrictions on public land for the place folks can camp. But when the Superb Courtroom overturns Martin v. Boise and laws in opposition to the homeless folks at play right here, then mainly what may just occur is you must see an entire new raft of criminalization insurance policies, of encampment sweeps with none fear for whether or not or now not the ones folks can in truth move someplace to sleep at night time.
Rosin: K, so on one facet, at the unhoused facet, it’s actually transparent what the pursuits are there. They’re very elementary. They’re like, I don’t have any position to head, and there isn’t capability in any refuge, and you’re criminalizing only a elementary lifestyles serve as of mine. What’s the town’s passion? What’s Grants Go or any of those towns—what’s at stake on their facet of items?
Demsas: Yeah. So Grants Go, Oregon, is—I feel folks outdoor of Oregon call to mind it as a liberal state, however it is a lovely conservative county. Town of Grants Go is a county seat. You could have some liberal house owners, however you even have numerous transparent conservatives, such things as that. Oregon’s an overly idiosyncratic position, so simply environment that context.
Everything of the frenzy against criminalization starts as a result of, in round 2013, they’ve this roundtable the place they’re attempting to talk about how you can eliminate vagrants or the issue of vagrancy. They usually start actually closely ticketing, penalizing, fining folks to get them out. And the issue, after all, in Grants Go is there’s mainly one actual refuge in Grants Go, and it’s what native reporters have known as a high-barrier refuge.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Demsas: And what that implies is that they’ve necessities on anyone to come back in. You could have necessities about attending day-to-day Christian services and products. They have got necessities round now not the usage of nicotine. They have got necessities round now not the usage of any ingredients. They have got prohibitions round interacting with the other intercourse. They have got prohibitions round trans folks or figuring out as the other gender or dressed in garments that establish as the other gender.
So there’s heaps of restrictions. And that’s a spot the place homeless analysis has been actually transparent: that if you are making it actually, actually onerous for folks, it clearly raises the stakes for them. And for those who’re a person who doesn’t suppose that you just’re perpetually homeless—you suppose that you just’re simply seeking to determine it out proper then, which is the general public who’re homeless (they don’t be expecting to be homeless for many years)—then it’s like, Oh, I’m now not going to simply forestall chatting with my spouse or my female friend. I’m now not going to simply become independent from my canine. I’m now not going to chilly turkey nicotine, which is an overly onerous factor to do, you already know? So it’s numerous issues that make it actually tricky in Grants Go.
Rosin: K. Simply to stay with town’s place for a minute, it seems like from what you’re describing it, it’s someplace between aesthetic and protection?
Demsas: I feel it’s public order. There’s actual considerations in regards to the parks themselves—they’re public parks. It’s now not only for homeless other people. It’s for everybody who’s in Oregon or any individual who desires to come back to Oregon. They’re public parks. You recognize, so I feel there are professional considerations about public order and protection which might be at the town’s phase.
Rosin: Proper, proper. K. After which the opposite factor that comes into this example is the 8th Modification, which used to be sudden to me. That’s the prohibition in opposition to merciless and strange punishment. I, individually, have by no means considered it as getting used on this explicit means. I call to mind it as having to do with sentencing or presentencing. Why that? Why does that arise in all of the circumstances?
Demsas: So there’s decades-old precedent that established that it used to be merciless and strange to punish anyone on account of their standing. Mainly, you’ll be able to punish conduct—there’s one thing that you just do—but when it’s one thing that you just are, you’ll be able to’t simply punish that life. And so homeless other people within the Martin v. Boise ruling—and if so—they had been seeking to turn out that homelessness itself used to be a standing that you just couldn’t simply criminalize. And so what used to be going down is that you need to criminalize explicit conduct. And so what’s fascinating is within the oral arguments we heard, you’ve got—
Rosin: Within the Grants Go case.
Demsas: Within the Grants Go case, sure. You could have those questions round, Smartly, are you criminalizing everybody who’s napping? As a result of for those who’re now not, you then’re criminalizing anyone’s standing. And the respondents from Grants Go actually struggled with this query.
[U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson]
Evangelis: It’s essential that it applies to everybody.
Elena Kagan: Yeah, I were given that. But it surely’s a unmarried particular person with a blanket. You don’t need to have a tent. You don’t need to have a camp. It’s a unmarried particular person with a blanket.
Evangelis: And napping in habits is thought of as—excuse me, napping in public is thought of as habits. This courtroom, in Clark, mentioned that—that this is habits. Additionally, the federal rules—
Kagan: Smartly, napping is a organic necessity. It’s kind of like respiring. I imply, you must say respiring is habits, too, however possibly you wouldn’t suppose that it’s alright to criminalize inhaling public.
Evangelis: I want to level to the federal rules—
Kagan: And for a homeless one that has no position to head, napping in public is more or less like inhaling public.
Evangelis: Smartly, two issues. Even for the federal rules …
Demsas: So for the cruel-and-unusual phase, napping is kind of like a need. It’s now not only a factor the place you’ll be able to simply make your self now not sleep, you already know?
Rosin: Proper. K, so the core factor for every facet is, at the homeless facet—forgetting in regards to the coverage for a minute—the core factor is: Are you necessarily criminalizing a state of being? After which for town, it’s town’s proper to come to a decision the way it desires to create public order and police within the town.
Demsas: And to be transparent, it’s now not simply that the oldsters on Grants Go—or at the facet of the homeless advocates, on this sense—are pronouncing town will have to now not have the ability to transfer folks out of public areas. They’re pronouncing, You must supply them another. For those who’re going to mention, You’ll’t be right here, after which they move, The place will have to we move?, you need to have a solution to that query.
However, you already know, to strengthen somewhat little bit of the case at the facet of town, I feel it’s essential to additionally be aware that, as an example, you must be ravenous to dying, and it’s nonetheless unlawful to thieve, proper? It’s unlawful to thieve bread or one thing like that. I imply, we’ve all observed Les Mis. In order that’s now not allowed. However on the identical time, the consideration that’s being made this is: You don’t criminalize hunger; you criminalize the stealing of bread, as opposed to, Are you simply criminalizing homelessness on this case, or are you criminalizing napping on this position at a particular time. Are you offering cheap restrictions?
Rosin: Yeah. This does sound so much like numerous different dilemmas that towns are going through now—numerous different dilemmas round social services and products as opposed to public order. That appears to be a central conundrum that liberal, city puts don’t moderately understand how to resolve at this time.
Demsas: And now not simply liberal. I imply, Grants Go isn’t a liberal position. I feel it is a drawback that has existed for some time.
And I feel that, in many ways, it’s an actual rigidity. And from time to time there’s a rigidity between, you already know, How do you supply for order whilst permitting folks to be loose and do what they need to do? And, in many ways, it’s now not an actual rigidity. Like with the homelessness—I feel that’s why I’m so thinking about it. And I’m similar to, There’s in truth a way to the disaster. It is advisable simply supply housing this is enough for the individuals who want it, and you then don’t have homelessness.
However, you already know, I feel folks overlook—as a result of we’re so in it now—however mass encampments weren’t standard for many of American historical past. The fashionable encampments and trendy tent homelessness started within the Eighties. And so, to me, it’s similar to, Sure, after all. Now there’s this rigidity. But it surely’s come after a long time of horrible coverage.
[Music]
Rosin: After the wreck—we get into that coverage. And likewise: What occurs if the Superb Courtroom case laws in choose of town?
[Break]
Rosin: K. What has came about over the previous few a long time, each in numbers of homelessness, demographics—what’s been the converting image? Do you wish to have to start out within the ’80s? Is that the correct position to start out?
Demsas: Homelessness has skyrocketed because the ’80s. Part 1,000,000 folks, kind of, are homeless on a given night time once they do the point-in-time rely to determine what number of people are homeless in The usa.
Rosin: What’s the point-in-time rely?
Demsas: Yeah. It’s an overly tricky factor: How do you determine what number of homeless folks there are? It’s now not like you’ll be able to do just a easy survey to determine that out.
Rosin: Proper. And no one’s like, Checking at the census: I’m homeless now.
Demsas: Yeah, precisely. So what they do is via the tip of January, mainly, each unmarried continuum of care, which is solely the jurisdiction that they reference—from time to time it’s counties, from time to time it’s towns, no matter. So each unmarried jurisdiction has to rely up their homeless. And via that, I imply—actually—they wish to move round and rely folks up. There’s numerous issues of it, however that’s more or less the rely now we have.
So homelessness has been actually on the upward thrust, and it’s actually tracked along the emerging unaffordability of housing, and that has been actually the core explanation for emerging homelessness.
Rosin: So is it flippantly allotted? Is it most commonly West Coast? During the last—because the ’80s—what else has modified but even so simply overall numbers?
Demsas: Sure. You notice it concentrated in puts the place you spot excessive housing prices. So you spot it concentrated in puts like Los Angeles, like New York, like Boston, like D.C., like San Francisco, like Seattle—those are the puts the place you spot homeless encampments on the upward thrust.
And I feel there’s additionally distinctions within the kinds of homelessness. So in puts like New York, it famously has a proper to refuge. And the East Coast, on account of the blisteringly chilly temperatures, there’s much more incentive—each humanitarian and simply because, I imply, you don’t desire a bunch of folks demise to your town—to offer much more refuge capability. And the East Coast has a tendency to have much more shelters, and so it’s ceaselessly much less visual than at the West Coast, the place there’s much less of that fear that individuals are going to die outdoor. And so the visibility of the homelessness is way better in puts like Los Angeles, as an example.
Rosin: Yeah. I used to be simply in Seattle, and I had forgotten in regards to the explicit nature of West Coast homelessness. I imply, Seattle, Portland—there are puts the place there are simply large populations downtown—
Demsas: Yep.
Rosin: Particularly at the moment of yr. And it’s simply an authorised a part of town infrastructure. That’s true in East Coast towns, too, however another way and somewhat extra just lately and somewhat extra season dependent. So yeah, I used to be reminded of that.
Now could be it that evident and smartly authorised that emerging housing prices and homelessness have moved in tandem? Is {that a} universally authorised theory?
Demsas: I don’t suppose there’s anything else universally authorised anymore.
Rosin: (Laughs.)
Demsas: However yeah, as universally authorised as you’ll be able to get, sure.
I feel that that is one thing that calls for taking a step again to speak about what we imply via one thing inflicting one thing else. So individuals are pronouncing such things as, Oh, so-and-so is homeless as a result of they had been hooked on medicine, after which they misplaced their process, after which they couldn’t make their hire, and now they’re dwelling in the street. They’re now not unsuitable if that tale came about, proper? So there are particular person vulnerabilities that make anyone much more likely to turn out to be homeless.
However while you cut back the availability of inexpensive housing to the level that we have got, now we have assured mainly that anyone might be homeless. Who turns into homeless is a query of vulnerability, proper? People who find themselves much less smartly off, individuals who have mental-health problems, people who find themselves hooked on medicine, people who find themselves much more likely to lose their jobs or who’re unstable somehow—so that they’re going to get into arguments with their members of the family or with roommates, so that they’re going to finally end up in the street—that’s all true. The ones issues are part of the tale of ways they turn out to be homeless.
However all of the ones issues came about earlier than 1980, and but we didn’t see the ones folks turn out to be homeless. They nonetheless had mental-health problems. There have been nonetheless drug-addiction problems. There have been nonetheless epidemics of various types of medicine. And but folks had been experiencing the ones issues, they usually had been housed. And why this is: as a result of there used to be simply much more availability of actually, actually reasonable housing inventory.
You’ll have excessive poverty, even, like Detroit, Philadelphia—those are puts with excessive poverty. They don’t revel in the extent of homelessness that you just see in puts like Boston or D.C. or San Francisco. So I feel that that’s attempting to determine causally from a policymaker’s viewpoint: What may just I do as a coverage maker to cut back the extent of homelessness? It is advisable have low poverty. San Francisco: very low-poverty position. You’ll’t cut back it via that a lot more, and but you continue to see excessive charges of homelessness. And so, to me, the lever that policymakers actually wish to focal point on is building up in provide of inexpensive housing up to conceivable.
Rosin: Proper. So for you, there are two issues which might be evident: One is that the reasons of homelessness are a specific interplay between private qualities and structural realities in a town. And the second one is: For those who do take a look at the interplay of the ones two issues, what you find yourself with is loss of inexpensive housing.
Demsas: Yeah.
Rosin: K. Let’s wind again round to our central query. So, now we have this Grants Go case, which is town as opposed to the rights of the homeless folks. From the common sense that we’ve mentioned—Debra Blake, who’s the unique complainant, pronouncing she has no position to head—from the way in which you’ve described issues, she’s most likely proper. Like, she’s most likely proper. That will be a not unusual drawback. And but, from all accounts of Superb Courtroom oral arguments, they appear to be tipping against Grants Go’s facet, proper? Is that proper?
Demsas: Yeah. Exterior observers suppose that, on web, it’s most probably that they—I imply, it’s additionally conceivable that they make a selection to not; they unravel on a query this is utterly more or less underneath. Frequently, the Superb Courtroom will simply unravel in this lowest-available query that doesn’t require them to in truth have interaction with a few of these larger problems. They usually may just do this and kick it back off.
Or even at this time, towns are clearing encampments, too. So whether or not the coverage truth appears to be like very, very other is actually unclear if the Superb Courtroom doesn’t rule. However, yeah, I imply, the Superb Courtroom does now not glance favorable for the homeless plaintiffs.
Rosin: K, so let’s say the Superb Courtroom does rule in choose of Grants Go’s need so as to care for jurisdiction and keep watch over over the homeless inhabitants. How do you learn that call? Is that simply avoidance of the larger drawback? Does it reason its personal set of issues? The place does that depart us?
Demsas: I feel that we’ve danced round this so much on this dialog, however there’s virtually two other coverage problems at play right here. There may be: Can we need to see fewer folks homeless? After which there’s: Do we wish our communities to really feel higher? As a result of for everybody, it simply feels dangerous to look folks dwelling in that means. That’s simply actually placing. It makes folks now not need to move against the ones spaces. You notice diminished engagement with the companies.
And so, to me, it assists in keeping the dialog on this position of: The issue is order. And the explanation I dislike this is since you in truth can’t remedy it in that area. For those who stay it inquisitive about order, you simply finally end up transferring homeless folks round. Perhaps you progress them to prison. Perhaps you progress them to some other town. Perhaps you’ll be able to incentivize extra of them to reside in automobiles and be higher at evading, in the event that they’re ready to get there. And a few folks may rely that as a win for those who simply finally end up now not having to look those encampments all over the place. However to me, that’s so much, so much, numerous public cash spent on now not fixing an issue.
Rosin: So that you’ve neither solved the homelessness drawback, nor have you ever solved the issue you sought after to resolve and narrowly focal point on, which is the order drawback.
Demsas: Sure. As a result of, to me, it’s the concept—I imply, California’s governor, even, has submitted an amicus transient in choose of Grants Go on this case. And he’s anyone who, you already know—it’s a liberal state the place they focal point in this factor.
I imply, there are a number of liberal town leaders who’ve additionally mentioned they would like extra energy with a view to transparent encampments. Those are puts that experience trustworthy heaps of cash and effort and time to fixing the issue. And I need to be very transparent right here that the general public who’re even, I feel, counterproductive in fixing the homelessness drawback are devoting heaps of power and money and time against a number of various kinds of answers.
And, to me, it’s now not that they don’t care about this. However I feel if the Superb Courtroom makes a decision it’s simply going to stay us once more on this spiral of speaking about and coping with this drawback as a serve as of encampments, as a serve as of order, as a serve as of policing and of folks hanging folks in prison, I simply fear that we finally end up caught there, and we don’t in truth attempt to remedy the issue of dysfunction.
Rosin: Proper. So if the Superb Courtroom does, as anticipated, facet with Grants Go, both not anything adjustments otherwise you get extra license to criminalize, wherein case not anything adjustments. Is there a universe the place the vacancy of that call results in one thing certain?
Demsas: I feel numerous states have began to understand the futility of their very own housing coverage and of permitting native governments to proceed on in the way in which they’ve for the previous few a long time. You notice power, maximum just lately, in Colorado, in Montana, in California, and numerous puts across the nation—in Texas. And those are puts the place folks have mentioned, K. The housing disaster has gotten so dangerous. We can’t proceed the established order. We’re going to make it a lot more straightforward to construct all kinds of housing. And that has came about adjoining with the upward thrust in homelessness. It has came about adjoining with the run-up in house costs and hire unaffordability. And that has actually spurred motion.
I feel folks had been actually stunned to look, in 2020, that this disaster—which numerous folks had idea, All proper, smartly, that’s simply on account of the ones loopy Californians and the ones New Yorkers and the ones Bostonians. That’s them. That’s their drawback. It’s now not our drawback—it moved. It unfold to the remainder of the rustic. Because the housing unaffordability disaster unfold, so, too, did the homelessness disaster, and that actually spurred policymakers to do so.
And so I’ve some critical considerations about what’s going to occur someday, however I do see some shining lighting of optimism in that state governments have taken on a particularly tricky political factor and been ready to seek out some degree of answers right here. Now, the observe document of puts staying on track on a coverage trail while you don’t see effects straight away isn’t the best. You recognize, I’m all the time wary. You’re seeking to get me to finish on a good be aware. And I’m similar to, You recognize, I don’t know!
Rosin: No, no, no. You recognize what I’m seeking to do? I’m seeking to building up anticipation. So Jerusalem, on your display—and congratulations—we will simply pay attention for consistent updates, since that is any such central factor. So I’m simply environment you up for figuring this out for us and all its headaches over the following few years.
Demsas: K, smartly, you simply introduced up my new display, Hanna. It’s referred to as Excellent on Paper.
Rosin: This sort of nice title.
Demsas: Thanks. So Excellent on Paper is a coverage display, and it’s one the place we’re investigating concepts that fly within the face of a few present narrative. Perhaps it’s a vast one held via numerous folks within the U.S. Perhaps it’s a story held via an educational group. But it surely desires to take severely the tips that appear within the face of what we already typically consider.
We’ve more or less already achieved an episode right here in your display now that’s like this—you already know, the concept homelessness isn’t actually about medicine, now not actually about intellectual fitness; it’s about housing. This is, in many ways, a story violation. It’s additionally so much about educational papers, so it’s about good-on-paper concepts and likewise papers which might be nice on—That’s a nice paper! (Laughs.)
Rosin: Yeah. That’s one thing I like. It’s so pleasant to come back upon lecturers who’ve reduce throughout the ways in which everyone else has achieved it and simply discovered how you can consider some very both evident or difficult issues. It’s so pleasant to come back upon a nice, transparent paper, you already know?
Demsas: Yeah. Smartly, thank you for having me in your display. I will’t wait to have you ever on mine.
Rosin: Sure. I would really like to. It used to be actually a laugh.
Demsas: Sure, sure. Thanks such a lot. I’m actually excited.
[Music]
Rosin: Jerusalem’s display, Excellent on Paper, is out now, with new episodes each Tuesday. I rarely know any individual who sees the sector as obviously as Jerusalem does. She sees via and at the back of and underneath all of those coverage choices. And for those who pay attention to Excellent on Paper, you’ll increase that superpower, too.
This episode of Radio Atlantic used to be produced via Jinae West. It used to be edited via Claudine Ebeid, fact-checked via Yvonne Kim, and engineered via Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the chief manufacturer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
I’m Hanna Rosin. Thanks for listening.