World

“I still have 20 more minutes before I have to move,” Anthony yelled from his green tent on a Hollywood sidewalk as he heard footsteps approaching.

Officials in Los Angeles had come by earlier to warn him that he could face arrest if he didn’t move his belongings.

They told him about the recent Supreme Court opinion that opened the door for cities and states across the US to punish anyone sleeping outdoors — the most significant ruling on homelessness since at least the 1980s, when many experts say the modern US homeless crisis began.

It’s added to the lengthy list of worries Anthony says he already has.

“I’m just trying to survive,” he told the BBC while lying down in his tent, using a blue backpack as a pillow.

A black trash bag sits inside, filled with what belongings he can carry as he moves from one area to the next.

“Some nights I don’t get no sleep,” he said. “I’ve been tired all day. I just want to lay somewhere comfortable and get a good nap in. And that’s it. I am not bothering nobody.”

Moments later, Anthony packed up his tent and went looking for a new place to call home.

The high court’s ruling is already having a ripple effect on cities across the country, which have been emboldened to take harsher measures to clear out homeless camps that have grown in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Many US cities have been wrestling with how to combat the growing crisis. The issue has been at the heart of recent election cycles on the West Coast, where officials have poured record amounts of money into creating shelters and building affordable housing.

Leaders face mounting pressure as long-term solutions – from housing and shelters to voluntary treatment services and eviction help – take time.

“It’s not easy and it will take a time to put into place solutions that work, so there’s a little bit of political theatre going on here,” Scout Katovich, an attorney who focuses on these issues for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the BBC.

“Politicians want to be able to say they’re doing something,”

The problem, Ms Katovich and other advocates say, is arresting or fining the homeless will only worsen the problem.

“This tactic simply kicks the can down the road. Sure, you might clean up a street but the people you arrest will surely be back.”

The high court’s ruling last week didn’t mandate how cities and governments should handle homelessness – but it gave communities leeway to take more severe measures without the fear of legal recourse.

The case began in the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon, with a population of around 40,000. Over the last 20 years the city doubled in size, but its supply of affordable and public housing did not keep up. Housing prices skyrocketed and the number of homeless grew.

Elected leaders passed laws allowing the city to issue $295 (£230) fines – or 20-day jail sentences for repeat offenses – to unhoused people sleeping or camping in public. Three homeless people sued the city in 2018 after they received multiple citations they were unable to pay.

An appeals court found such laws virtually banned homelessness and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court finally ruled that cities were clear to prohibit homeless people sleeping outside in public places.

“A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority’s opinion.

Theane Evangelis argued this case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Grants Pass.

She says city officials had their hands tied because they could not force anyone into a shelter. She argues those who refuse to use the services offered end up staying in encampments.

“Living in tents is not a compassionate solution, and it’s not treating people with dignity. And so the Supreme Court’s decision was remarkable in the degree to which it listened to those cities,” she said.

Leaders in Grants Pass say they plan to examine the Supreme Court opinion before making a plan on whether to enforce its ban on encampments.

The ruling comes at a critical time for the unhoused.

Last year, the US tracked the highest numbers of homeless people since 2007 – when the US Department of Housing and Urban Development started tracking such data.

There were 653,104 homeless people counted as part of the agency’s yearly homeless assessment in 2023. That’s a nearly 11% increase from the year prior.

The ACLU has been tracking the reaction to the decision by city leaders across the US.

It has already sent a letter to Manchester, New Hampshire, after the mayor promised to ban encampments to “make our streets safe, clear and passable”.

Other city leaders, like the mayor in Lancaster, California, have promised to “be much more aggressive” against encampments in neighbourhoods and near stores.

Mayor R Rex Parris told the Los Angeles Times “we’re going to be moving them really fast”.

State lawmakers in Oregon also seem poised to look at changing laws that will give them greater latitude to rid homeless camps, local media reported.

In Spokane, Washington, leaders are asking authorities to dismantle more camps.

But fining people who don’t have the means for housing worsens their finances, advocates say.

Arresting them can make it harder to find a job or housing, experts told the BBC.

“There is mounds and volumes of evidence showing that having an unpaid citation and a warrant out for arrest, let alone in incarceration, prevents people from accessing housing, jobs in other places,” Chris Herring, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California in Los Angeles told the BBC.

“It actually prevents people from accessing shelter.”

Not all cities have welcomed the court decision.

In Los Angeles, the mayor called the ruling “disappointing” and vowed to continue investing in affordable housing, voluntary treatment and eviction protections.

Days after the opinion, the city released a homeless count showing the first drop in nearly six years.

Advocates say it is a prime example that other cities can learn from.

“Real change takes time,” Sasha Morozov, a regional director for PATH, a leading homeless provider in the Los Angeles area, told the BBC.

Ms Morozov noted, though, outreach teams in the greater Los Angeles area are still working to inform those living on the streets about the Supreme Court’s ruling. Teams are also preparing for increased demand for legal services.

Around the corner from Anthony, Topher Williams, 28, calls a makeshift tent on a sidewalk home.

Black and blue tarps are tied to tree branches and street parking poles. Plywood boards line the edges of the structure, which he calls a three-room apartment.

Mr Williams, who told the BBC he was an Army veteran, has been living on the streets for four years. An unlucky combination of medical expenses and the pandemic’s economic struggles left him without a job or shelter.

Like Anthony, he’s frustrated at the lack of compassion from city officials and law enforcement.

“It’s mind blowing the way people look at us. The way people straight up treat us like we’re like less than animals. And they have no idea,” he said, tears welling in his eyes.

“I served eight years in the military. I did two tours of duty. I gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting for this country, and to be treated like I’m a second-class citizen is wild.”

Asked if he was scared about potential arrests, he said it’s part of this way of life.

“We’ve got a lot that we have to deal with already. A lot of the things are kind of stressful. But I don’t worry about things until they start affecting me.”

Like Topher, Anthony said being arrested may not be the worst outcome.

“At least I’ll have a bed and maybe I’ll be in the system and get the right kind of help.”

Voting has closed in Iran’s presidential election, with a hardline conservative going head-to-head with a reformist.

The run-off comes after no candidate secured a majority in the first round of the election on 28 June, which saw a historically low voter turnout of 40%.

Preliminary election results are expected to be released by Saturday morning local time.

The vote was called after Iran’s previous president Ebrahim Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash in May, in which seven others died.

One of the candidates, former heart surgeon Dr Massoud Pezeshkian, is critical of Iran’s notorious morality police.

Dr Pezeshkian has caused a stir after promising “unity and cohesion” and an end to Iran’s “isolation” from the world.

He has called for “constructive negotiations” with Western powers over a renewal of the faltering 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program in return for an easing of Western sanctions.

Dr Pezeshkian’s rival, Saeed Jalili, favours the status quo. The former nuclear negotiator enjoys strong support amongst Iran’s most religious communities.

He is known for his hardline anti-Western stance and opposition to restoring the nuclear deal, which he says crossed Iran’s “red lines”.

In order to stand, both candidates had to make it through a vetting process run by the Guardian Council, a body made up of 12 clerics and jurists that hold significant power in Iran.

That process saw 74 other candidates removed from the race, including several women.

The Guardian Council has previously been criticised by human rights groups for disqualifying candidates who are not loyal enough to the regime.

After years of civil unrest – culminating in anti-regime protests that shook the country in 2022-23 – many young and middle-class Iranians deeply mistrust the establishment and have previously refused to vote.

With turnout in the first round at its lowest since the 1979 Iranian revolution, voter apathy could be a deciding factor in the run-off.

On Iranian social media, the Persian hashtag “traitorous minority” has gone viral, urging people not to vote for either of the candidates and calling anyone who does so a “traitor”.

But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected suggestions that the low turnout represents a rejection of his rule.

“There are reasons [behind the low turnout] and politicians and sociologists will examine them, but if anyone thinks that those who did not vote are against the establishment, they are plainly wrong,” he said.

In a rare move, he acknowledged that some Iranians do not accept the current regime. “We listen to them and we know what they are saying and it is not like they are hidden and not seen,” Mr Khamenei said.

Within Iran, local media has encouraged people to cast ballots.

Reformist daily newspaper Sazandegi said “the future is tied to your votes” while the Hammihan newspaper said “now it’s your turn”.

Tehran municipality-run daily newspaper Hamshahri published a piece entitled “100 reasons for voting”, while the state broadcaster-run daily newspaper Jaam-e Jam said Iran was “awaiting the people”.

More than 50 candidates and activists in France have come under physical attack in the run-up to Sunday’s tense final round of parliamentary elections, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin has said.

He revealed the figure after government spokeswoman Prisca Thevenot, her deputy Virginie Lanlo and a party activist were brutally assaulted as they put up election posters in Meudon, south-west of Paris.

The motive for the attack is not clear, but Ms Thevenot returned to Meudon on Thursday with Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who condemned what he called “attacks of intolerable cowardice”.

The spate of assaults across France reflects the febrile mood on the final day of campaigning in an election that the far-right National Rally (RN) is poised to win.

Although RN is well ahead in the polls, 217 candidates have dropped out from local run-off races so another candidate has a better chance of stopping them winning an outright majority in the National Assembly.

Mr Darmanin told news channel BFMTV the attacks were taking place in a climate in which France was “on edge” and more than 30 people had been arrested.

He said the attackers were either people who had “spontaneously become angry” or they were the “ultra-left, ultra-right or other political groups”.

Images filmed from a block of flats showed the youths swarming around the candidate, her deputy Virginie Lanlo and a party activist for President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble alliance.

Ms Thevenot told Le Parisien website that when she and her colleagues objected to the youths defacing party posters “they immediately attacked one of my activists, injuring Virginie”. Ms Lanlo suffered an arm injury, while the activist was punched and hit with a scooter, ending up with a broken jaw. The car windscreen was also smashed by the scooter.

Three teenagers and a man aged 20 were arrested by police and the incident was quickly condemned across the political spectrum.

Mr Attal called on people to “reject the climate of violence and hatred that’s taking hold”, while RN leader Jordan Bardella said one of his “big commitments as prime minister” would be to “combat record insecurity and repeat offending”.

Mr Darmanin has announced that 30,000 police will be deployed across France for Sunday’s vote in an attempt to prevent “the ultra-left or ultra-right” from stirring up trouble.

The BBC spoke to voters in his constituency in northern France on Thursday who said they feared youths would go on the rampage whoever won, to express their anger at the political system.

Law and order is one of RN’s big priorities, alongside immigration and tax cuts to target the cost-of-living crisis.

RN candidates have also come under attack. Marie Dauchy described being “violently assaulted” as she campaigned at a market in La Rochette near Grenoble in the south-east.

A conservative candidate allied with RN, Nicolas Conquer, complained that he and a female colleague had been pelted with eggs. And last month another RN candidate was treated in hospital after he was set upon while handing out pamphlets.

Having won 33.2% of the vote in the first round of the snap election, called out of the blue by President Macron, Mr Bardella’s party is now aiming to win an absolute majority in the 577-seat National Assembly.

But his political opponents have agreed to do all they can to block the far right from winning enough seats to form a government.

Seventy-six seats were won outright in the first round by candidates who won more than half the local vote in their constituency, including 39 RN candidates and their allies.

The other 501 seats will be settled in run-off votes, and 217 third-placed candidates have pulled out of the race to hand a rival a better chance of defeating RN. Of those 217 withdrawals, 130 candidates came from the left-wing New Popular Front and 81 from the Macron alliance.

Marine Le Pen has complained bitterly about the operation to secure “mass withdrawals”, and blamed those who sought to “stay in power against the will of the people”.

However, she said she thought there was still a chance of winning an absolute majority, if the electorate turned out in big numbers.

The latest Ifop poll suggests RN will win 210-240 seats, short of the 289 it needs to form a government. That is down on the 240-270 range of seats that it was estimated to win after the first round.

Nevertheless there is fear among some of France’s minorities of what RN might do if it gets into power.

It aims to give French citizens “national preference” over immigrants for jobs and housing and to abolish the right to automatic French citizenship for children of foreign parents, if those children have spent five years in France from the age of 11 to 18.

Dual citizens would also be barred from dozens of sensitive jobs.

One Muslim woman in a district that voted 54% for RN last Sunday told the BBC that RN was gaining ground with every election that took place.

Meanwhile, prosecutors are investigating an extremist “patriotic network” website that published a list of almost 100 lawyers “for eliminating”, after they signed an open letter against National Rally.

On the eve of France’s quarter-final tie against Portugal in the European Championships in Germany, national football captain Kylian Mbappé called on voters to “make the right choice”.

After Sunday’s “catastrophic” first-round results, he said “we can’t put the country into the hands of those people”, without specifying who they were.

Three decades on from the day it began, it is hard to get your head around the scale of Amazon.

Consider its vast warehouse in Dartford, on the outskirts of London. It has millions of stock items, with hundreds of thousands of them bought every day – and it takes two hours from the moment something is ordered, the company says, for it to be picked, packed and sent on its way.

Now, picture that scene and multiply it by 175. That’s the number of “fulfilment centres”, as Amazon likes to call them, that it has around the world.

Even if you think you can visualise that never-ending blur of parcels crisscrossing the globe, you need to remember something else: that’s just a fraction of what Amazon does.

It is also a major streamer and media company (Amazon Prime Video); a market leader in home camera systems (Ring) and smart speakers (Alexa) and tablets and e-readers (Kindle); it hosts and supports vast swathes of the internet (Amazon Web Services); and much more besides.

“For a long time it has been called ‘The Everything Store’, but I think, at this point, Amazon is sort of ‘The Everything Company’,” Bloomberg’s Amanda Mull tells me.

“It’s so large and so omnipresent and touches so many different parts of life, that after a while, people sort of take Amazon’s existence in all kinds of elements of daily life sort of as a given,” she says.

Or, as the company itself once joked, pretty much the only way you could get though a day without enriching Amazon in some way was by “living in a cave”.

So the story of Amazon, since it was founded by Jeff Bezos in 1994, has been one of explosive growth, and continual reinvention.

There has been plenty of criticism along the way too, over “severe” working conditions and how much tax it pays.

But the main question as it enters its fourth decade appears to be: once you are The Everything Company, what do you do next?

Or as Sucharita Kodali, who analyses Amazon for research firm Forrester, puts it: “What the heck is left?”

“Once you’re at a half a trillion dollars in revenue, which they already are, how do you continue to grow at double digits year over year?”

One option is to try to tie the threads between existing businesses: the vast amounts of shopping data Amazon has for its Prime members might help it sell adverts on its streaming service, which – like its rivals – is increasingly turning to commercials for revenue.

But that only goes so far – what benefits can Kuiper, its satellite division, bring to Whole Foods, its supermarket chain?

To some extent, says Sucharita Kodali, the answer is to “keep taking swings” at new business ventures, and not worry if they fall flat.

Just this week Amazon killed a business robot line after only nine months – Ms Kodali says that it is just one of a “whole graveyard of bad ideas” the company tried and discarded in order to find the successful ones.

But, she says, Amazon may also have to focus on something else: the increasing attention of regulators, asking difficult questions like what does it do with our data, what environmental impact is it having, and is it simply too big?

All of these issues could prompt intervention “in the same way that we rolled back the monopolies that became behemoths in the early 20th century”, Ms Kodali says.

For Juozas Kaziukėnas, founder of e-commerce intelligence firm Marketplace Pulse, its size poses another problem: the places its Western customers live in simply can not take much more stuff.

“Our cities were not built for many more deliveries,” he tells the BBC.

That makes emerging economies like India, Mexico and Brazil important. But, Mr Kaziukėnas, suggests, there Amazon does not just need to enter the market but to some extent to make it.

“It’s crazy and maybe should not be the case – but that’s a conversation for another day,” he says.

Amanda Mull points to another priority for Amazon in the years ahead: staving off competition from Chinese rivals like Temu and Shein.

Amazon, she says, has “created the spending habits” of western consumers by acting as a trusted intermediary between them and Chinese manufacturers, and bolting on to that easy returns and lightening fast delivery.

But remove that last element of the deal and you can bring prices down, as the Chinese retailers have done.

“They have said ‘well, if you wait a week or 10 days for something that you’re just buying on a lark, we can give it to you for almost nothing,'” says Ms Mull – a proposition that is appealing to many people, especially during a cost of living crisis.

Juozas Kaziukėnas is not so sure – suggesting the new retailers will remain “niche”, and it will take something much more fundamental to challenge Amazon’s position.

“For as long as going shopping involves going to a search bar – Amazon has nailed that,” he says.

Thirty years ago a fledging company spotted emerging trends around internet use and realised how it could upend first retail, then much else besides.

Mr Kaziukėnas says for that to happen again will take a similar leap of imagination, perhaps around AI.

“The only threat to Amazon is something that doesn’t look like Amazon,” he says.