Last week’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court about a homelessness dispute in Grants Pass, Ore., underscored the difficult policy issues nationwide of balancing the rights of the homeless and the need of municipalities to manage the problems.

Regardless of how the justices ultimately rule, however, this case should not upend the progress Hawaii has made in wrestling with the complex social challenges involved.

On Oahu in particular, where homelessness is especially acute, the city and state have made necessary provisions of health care and emergency housing while retaining capacity to address competing security needs of surrounding businesses and neighbors.

It’s unclear how much the high court ruling, expected when the court’s term ends this summer, will affect Hawaii, where its own high court recently came down against Maui County’s homeless sweeps. Still pending in the state Circuit Court is another case on Honolulu’s homelessness regulation.

The local impact of the Oregon ruling could depend on how broadly or narrowly the U.S. Supreme Court frames the order. Most experts analyzing the arguments believe a majority of the court will align mostly with Grants Pass officials who had imposed penalties for homeless encampments in public spaces. This was despite the city’s lack of an open-doors kind of emergency shelter: The only beds available are offered by a religious organization, which requires clients to engage in religious activities.

Past court decisions within the western states of the 9th Circuit (including Hawaii) have weighed against assessing penalties simply for being homeless, especially if there is no shelter space available to them. But if there’s an illicit behavior involved, such as drug possession or sale, then penalties are seen as acceptable.

If the bar is lowered, allowing punishments such as arrests and fines to pass legal muster — essentially criminalizing homelessness — that could alter the homelessness landscape across the country in a way that is not sustainable. Most of the homeless are unable to pay a fine, and a policy that gives them a criminal record makes finding jobs, housing and self-reliance even more difficult.

At the same time, cities do need ways to intervene in the interest of sanitation and public safety. Such a situation currently is the closure of a mile-long stretch of Ulehawa Beach Park in Nanakuli, in effect until 5 a.m. Wednesday. That was the same place where a 62-year-old man was stabbed to death Nov. 7, and social service leaders agree that it needs cleaning.

Honolulu’s decades-old journey in grappling with homelessness has zigged and zagged. It has conducted forceful encampment sweeps in the past, drawing repeated legal challenges, primarily from the ACLU Hawai‘i. The result of these challenges is that the city was pressed to make concessions, giving notice of a sweep and providing storage of possessions that may be cleared from public areas such as sidewalks.

The ACLU has maintained that these steps insufficiently protect the rights of the homeless; its consistent argument is that homelessness is a policy failure that cities should respond to through building housing, not punitive action.

That’s certainly ideal, but in reality, difficult to achieve at the necessary pace.

Public agencies need to find a middle ground and, to a large extent, Hawaii is doing so. Clinics and triage health centers, such as what’s developed in Iwilei, and the “kauhale” villages that give the homeless a chance to heal and regain footing, are positive movements.

Homelessness is a complex crisis, still unresolved, but policies here evolved. Advocates have pushed for these improvements through the courts, and Hawaii should stay the course of progress that it’s on.