Key Takeaways

1. Supreme Court Upholds Local Ordinances: In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that municipal bans on camping and sleeping in public spaces do not violate the Eighth Amendment, even when homeless individuals have no alternative shelter options.
2. Reversal of Ninth Circuit Precedent: The decision overturns prior Ninth Circuit precedent that had protected homeless individuals from criminal sanctions for sleeping outdoors, granting cities greater authority to enforce anti-camping laws.
3. Broad Implications for Homelessness Policy: The ruling enables municipalities nationwide to adopt or enforce similar ordinances, raising concerns among advocates about increased criminalization of homelessness and shifting the balance toward local control over social welfare concerns.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson marks a watershed moment in the ongoing national debate over homelessness, municipal authority, and constitutional protections. At its core, the case addresses whether cities can criminally penalize individuals for sleeping or camping in public spaces when they have no access to shelter, and whether such enforcement constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from enforcing bans on public camping, even against those with no other place to go. This decision reversed the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling and has far-reaching implications for both municipal governance and the rights of homeless individuals.

This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the case, its legal background, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and the broader policy and societal impacts. Attorneys, policymakers, advocates, and concerned citizens will find detailed insights into how City of Grants Pass v. Johnson reshapes the legal landscape surrounding homelessness in the United States.

Background of the Case

Origins in Grants Pass, Oregon

The case began in Grants Pass, a small city in southern Oregon facing a growing homelessness crisis. In response, the city enacted and enforced a series of municipal codes—specifically, Grants Pass Municipal Code §§5.61—that prohibited camping or sleeping on public property, including parks and sidewalks. These ordinances imposed fines, and repeat violations could result in criminal charges.

A group of homeless individuals, led by plaintiff Gloria Johnson, challenged these ordinances in federal court. They argued that punishing people for sleeping outdoors—when no shelter beds were available—amounted to criminalizing their status as homeless, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Ninth Circuit Precedent

The plaintiffs relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision in Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cities from criminally sanctioning homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors if no alternative shelter is available. Under Martin, cities within the Ninth Circuit (which covers much of the Western U.S.) could not enforce anti-camping ordinances against those with nowhere else to go.

In the Grants Pass litigation, both the district court and the Ninth Circuit sided with the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction that prevented the city from enforcing its ordinances against homeless individuals when shelter beds were unavailable. The city appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between local authority and constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion, reversing the Ninth Circuit and upholding the city’s ordinances. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, concluded that the Eighth Amendment does not bar cities from enforcing bans on public camping, even when applied to individuals who are involuntarily homeless.

Key Points from the Majority

• Eighth Amendment Scope: The Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is primarily concerned with the method and proportionality of punishment, not the underlying conduct being criminalized. The majority reasoned that laws targeting conduct (such as camping or sleeping in public) are not inherently unconstitutional, even if they disproportionately affect certain groups.
• Distinguishing Status and Conduct: The majority distinguished between punishing a person’s status (which is prohibited) and punishing conduct (which is not). The Court cited Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), to support the view that cities can penalize the act of sleeping in public, even if the individual’s status as homeless makes such conduct inevitable.
• Local Autonomy: The opinion emphasized the importance of local control, noting that cities are best positioned to address community needs and public safety. The Court rejected the idea that federal courts should dictate how municipalities handle complex social issues like homelessness.

The Dissent

Justice Sotomayor authored a strong dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The dissent argued that criminalizing unavoidable behavior—such as sleeping outside when no shelter is available—effectively punishes individuals for their status as homeless, in direct conflict with the Eighth Amendment.

Key Points from the Dissent

• Punishing the Status of Homelessness: The dissent contended that the ordinances do not merely regulate conduct, but criminalize the unavoidable consequences of being homeless. When no shelter is available, sleeping in public is a necessity, not a choice.
• Disproportionate Impact: The dissent highlighted the disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable, arguing that the ruling allows cities to punish people for circumstances beyond their control.
• Moral and Social Concerns: The dissent warned that the decision could lead to increased criminalization of poverty and homelessness, exacerbating rather than alleviating the underlying social issues.

The Concurrence

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence emphasizing the limited scope of the Eighth Amendment as originally understood, and expressing concern that expanding its reach would improperly involve federal courts in local governance.

Legal Analysis

The Eighth Amendment and Its Application

The Eighth Amendment provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Historically, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to prohibit certain methods of punishment and to ensure proportionality between the offense and the penalty.

In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court held that criminalizing a person’s status (such as drug addiction) is unconstitutional. However, in Powell v. Texas, the Court distinguished between status and conduct, allowing punishment for acts (like public intoxication) even if they are linked to a person’s condition.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson clarifies and narrows the application of these precedents, holding that cities may enforce bans on conduct (such as sleeping in public), regardless of whether that conduct is an unavoidable consequence of homelessness.

Overturning Martin v. Boise

The Supreme Court’s decision explicitly overrules the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Martin v. Boise. Under Martin, cities could not enforce anti-camping laws against homeless individuals when no shelter space was available. The Supreme Court rejected this standard, reasoning that it improperly extended Eighth Amendment protections and unduly restricted municipal authority.

Local Control vs. Federal Oversight

A central theme of the majority opinion is the deference owed to local governments in addressing public welfare and safety. The Court emphasized that cities have the expertise and flexibility to respond to local conditions, and that federal courts should not micromanage municipal policy choices.

However, critics argue that this approach risks undermining constitutional protections for vulnerable populations, and may lead to a patchwork of enforcement practices across the country.

Policy and Social Implications

Impact on Homeless Individuals

The most immediate impact of the decision falls on homeless individuals, particularly in cities with limited shelter capacity. By allowing enforcement of anti-camping ordinances regardless of shelter availability, the ruling exposes homeless people to fines, arrests, and potential jail time for sleeping in public spaces.

Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that this approach criminalizes poverty and fails to address the root causes of homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment.

Municipal Responses

Many cities across the United States have similar ordinances on the books. The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to embolden municipalities to enforce these laws more aggressively, especially in areas with visible homelessness or public pressure to address encampments.

At the same time, some cities may choose to continue prioritizing social services and outreach, recognizing that punitive measures alone do not solve the underlying issues. The National League of Cities notes that the ruling is a "win for local control," but also underscores the need for comprehensive policy responses.

Federal, State, and Local Policy Debates

The decision has reignited debates at all levels of government about the appropriate balance between enforcement and support. Some policymakers view the ruling as an opportunity to restore order to public spaces and address community concerns about safety and sanitation. Others warn that criminal sanctions will only exacerbate homelessness and strain the criminal justice system.

The ruling may also spur legislative efforts to provide more shelter, affordable housing, and supportive services, as cities seek to avoid the negative consequences of widespread enforcement.

Reactions and Critiques

Legal Community and Advocacy Organizations

The decision has been met with strong reactions from legal scholars, civil rights organizations, and policymakers.

• The ACLU condemned the ruling, arguing that it "punishes people simply for being homeless" and "fails to provide a path out of homelessness."
• Many legal analysts, as discussed on SCOTUSblog, note that the decision marks a significant shift in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and could have lasting effects on the rights of marginalized populations.

Municipalities and Local Officials

Some city officials have welcomed the decision as restoring necessary tools to manage public spaces and respond to community concerns. Others express concern about the potential for increased litigation and public backlash if enforcement is perceived as overly punitive.

Broader Social Implications

The ruling has sparked broader conversations about the criminalization of poverty, the limits of constitutional protections, and the role of government in addressing social welfare. Critics argue that the decision reflects a broader trend of shifting responsibility for social problems to the criminal justice system, rather than investing in long-term solutions.

Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Policymakers

For Municipal Attorneys

• Review Local Ordinances: Cities should carefully review their anti-camping and public space ordinances to ensure they are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision and other applicable laws.
• Consider Policy Alternatives: While enforcement is now constitutionally permissible, cities should weigh the potential social and fiscal costs of aggressive enforcement against investment in shelter and support services.
• Prepare for Litigation: Although the Eighth Amendment barrier has been removed, enforcement actions may still face challenges under state constitutions, disability laws, or equal protection theories.

For Advocates and Defense Counsel

• Explore State Law Protections: Some state constitutions or statutes may offer broader protections than the federal Eighth Amendment.
• Monitor Enforcement Practices: Document and challenge any patterns of discriminatory or abusive enforcement, especially where alternatives to shelter are not meaningfully available.
• Engage in Policy Advocacy: Work with local governments to promote humane and effective responses to homelessness, emphasizing prevention and support over punishment.

For Policymakers

• Invest in Solutions: The ruling underscores the need for increased investment in affordable housing, mental health care, and substance abuse treatment.
• Balance Enforcement and Support: Craft policies that balance the maintenance of public order with the protection of vulnerable individuals’ rights and dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the decision mean cities must enforce anti-camping ordinances?

No. The decision gives cities the authority to enforce such ordinances, but does not require them to do so. Municipalities retain discretion to prioritize social services or adopt alternative approaches.

Can individuals still challenge enforcement actions?

Yes. While the Supreme Court has removed the Eighth Amendment as a barrier, enforcement actions may still be challenged on other grounds, such as due process, equal protection, or under state and local law.

What does this mean for cities outside the Ninth Circuit?

The ruling applies nationwide, ensuring that all municipalities have the same authority to enforce anti-camping ordinances, regardless of their location.

Conclusion

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson represents a pivotal shift in the legal framework governing municipal authority and the rights of homeless individuals. By holding that the Eighth Amendment does not bar enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, the Supreme Court has granted cities greater leeway to regulate public spaces, even when no shelter alternatives exist.

The decision has far-reaching implications for policy, advocacy, and the lived experiences of homeless individuals. It highlights the ongoing tension between local control and constitutional protections, and underscores the urgent need for meaningful solutions to address homelessness in the United States.

Attorneys, policymakers, and advocates must navigate this new legal landscape with care, balancing the demands of public order with the imperative to protect the rights and dignity of society’s most vulnerable members.

For further research and in-depth legal analysis, attorneys are encouraged to visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer: This guide provides an overview of the legal and policy issues surrounding City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. It is not legal advice. The law is complex and fact-specific; consult a qualified attorney for advice on particular situations.