US Supreme Court overturns lower court ruling on Oregon homelessness case, decides criminalizing homeless residents for sleeping outside is not cruel and unusual

Editor’s note: This is a developing story. It will be updated with more information as it becomes available.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson on June 28, reversing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injunction barring the southern Oregon city of Grants Pass from enforcing ordinances banning sleeping in public spaces.

In a 6-3 decision, conservative justices reversed the lower court’s 2022 ruling that said punishing homeless residents for sleeping in public spaces when they have no other option violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings, saying its 2018 Martin v. Boise decision — which served as the backdrop for the Grants Pass case — went too far in applying the Eighth Amendment to homeless residents facing punishment for sitting, lying or sleeping in public.

The ruling is expected to significantly impact homelessness policy throughout the United States, as many local governments currently prohibit public sleeping under threat of civil or criminal penalties regardless of shelter availability.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority opinion. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Gorsuch wrote for the majority, saying the Eighth Amendment does not authorize federal judges to dictate homelessness policy and should be left to the American people. The majority ruling argued because Grants Pass’ anti-homeless ordinances theoretically apply to everyone, they do not effectively criminalize status but rather conduct.

“Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others,” Gorsuch said. “But in our democracy, that is their right.”

In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor said it is possible for the court to balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people and constitutional principles. She said the majority focused solely on local governments while leaving the most vulnerable with the impossible choice of staying awake or being arrested.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor said.

In amicus briefs filed in advance of oral arguments, elected officials, police departments and business associations throughout the West Coast joined Grants Pass in saying two interrelated 9th Circuit decisions — Martin v. Boise and Grants Pass v. Johnson — remove the tools they need to address the growing homelessness crisis.

Advocates for homeless residents say laws penalizing people who have nowhere else to go violate the Eighth Amendment because they punish people for the status of being homeless. While the city said the laws are applied to everyone, counsel for a class of involuntarily homeless residents argued in court that the ordinances are exclusively enforced against those who have nowhere else to go.

Theane Evangelis, legal counsel for the city of Grants Pass, said the 9th Circuit’s decisions tied the hands of local governments, applauding the Supreme Court’s reversal.

“The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean,” Evangelis said. “Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

Ed Johnson, the Oregon Law Center’s director of litigation, who brought the initial suit against Grants Pass, said the decision was disappointing, adding the solution to the U.S. homelessness crisis does not ultimately rest with the courts.

“We are disappointed that a majority of the Court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go,” Johnson said.

Johnson added that the court did not reach the Excessive Fines Clause claim or rule out the possibility that the Grants Pass ordinances violate the Due Process Clause, which could leave room for future challenges. Still, the burden of proof would fall on a homeless resident on an individualized basis if making a claim in court.

Background

The Oregon Law Center, or OLC, filed the class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Medford on Oct. 15, 2018 — just six weeks after the 9th Circuit issued its decision in Martin v. Boise. That decision served as the legal backdrop for the Grants Pass case and found the U.S. Constitution blocks cities from imposing criminal penalties on homeless people for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property if adequate alternative shelter isn’t available.

Initially filed as Debra Blake v. Grants Pass, the complaint argued that a web of ordinances criminalized the existence of homeless individuals in the city. Debra Blake passed away in 2021, and Gloria Johnson and John Logan stepped in as class representatives as the appeal made its way to the 9th Circuit Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22.

The question presented to the court was whether city ordinances leveling civil and criminal penalties against involuntarily homeless individuals — meaning they have no other option — is cruel and unusual punishment.

Despite significant initial pushback from the community, Grants Pass City Council unanimously approved a small emergency shelter and navigation center run by the local organization Mobile Integrative Navigation Team, or MINT, on April 17. Still, the building’s capacity is well below what is needed to ensure everyone has an option to sleep indoors.

Grants Pass historically had no low-barrier emergency shelter consistently available for homeless residents. The only shelter for adults was the Gospel Rescue Mission — a high-barrier program that opened in 1983. The mission requires people who stay there to participate in a work program, attend daily Christian services, abstain from substances (including nicotine), and does not allow socializing with the opposite sex except at approved events. The mission acknowledges gender and sexuality in “Biblical terms,” according to its house rules.

Still, the city ordinances require homeless residents living in vehicles to move every 72 hours, and police force people living in parks to move as often as allowed by state law, which is also 72 hours. City code bars anyone from sleeping in public spaces or using sleeping materials for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Police give homeless residents $295 citations for “scattering rubbish,” a loosely defined term for items officers find near a tent. Fines for violating camping ordinances can increase to $537.60 if left unpaid.

If a person receives two or more citations within a year for violating park rules, they can receive an exclusion order barring them from being in the park for 30 days under threat of criminal trespass. A person found guilty of criminal trespass can be punished with up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.

The Medford court ruled the city’s ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment in July 2020. On appeal, the 9th Circuit issued a permanent injunction Sept. 28, 2022, barring West Coast states in its jurisdiction from issuing civil and criminal penalties against involuntarily homeless residents lacking reasonable alternative shelter.

In August 2023, Grants Pass petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking it to hear the case. Arguing the 9th Circuit erred in its ruling, the city claimed the Eighth Amendment sets limits on bail, fines and punishments but does not say what conduct governments may deem unlawful in the first place.

Street Roots is an award-winning weekly investigative publication covering economic, environmental and social inequity. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.