Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit prison authorities from indefinitely detaining supervisees based on an assumption that a municipality will not provide legally-mandated compliant housing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has established that the liberty interests of parolees, albeit not unfettered, is protected by Due Process, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 48182 (1972); that their liberty and freedom should be “very different” from prison, id.; and that it would be “fundamentally unfair” to “automatically” revoke parolees’ liberty based on failure to pay a fine “through no fault” of their own. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 669 (1983). Yet, in New York, indigent individuals granted release after serving sentences for sex offense convictions are kept in prison based on housing restrictions they can never hope to satisfy except through homeless shelter placement. New York City is legally obligated to provide such compliant shelter, but the State keeps these individuals incarcerated during their terms of supervision because of claimed, yet unsubstantiated, doubts that the City will live up to its obligations. Indeed, petitioner spent 25 months of his “community” supervision behind bars due to his homelessness—akin to a cruel and unusual punishment on the basis of “status” or “chronic condition.” Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962). The questions presented are: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit prison authorities from indefinitely detaining supervisees based on an assumption that a municipality will not provide legally-mandated compliant housing? 2) Does the Eighth Amendment bar prison authorities from extending incarceration for individuals based on their homelessness and indigence?