On April 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the pivotal case of *City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson*. This case will determine whether local governments can fine, arrest, and jail people for living outside when they have no other place to go. The Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP) is organizing a day of action in fourteen cities to advocate for the rights of unhoused people.
### The Case
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees nine states in the western U.S., including Oregon, has previously ruled that criminalizing basic survival activities amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. However, the city of Grants Pass is challenging this ruling. City officials have openly stated their goal is to make the city “uncomfortable enough” for unhoused people so that they leave.
Currently, cities are not supposed to criminalize sleeping if no shelter is available. Despite this, many cities continue to harass and arrest people. Temporary shelters are not a substitute for permanent housing, but the current legal requirement that cities cannot criminalize people if there are no shelter beds available provides some legal recourse for unhoused individuals.
### What’s At Stake
Over the past 40 years, thousands of lawsuits have been filed to protect the rights of unhoused people in public spaces. The Grants Pass case threatens to remove these protections, potentially leading to increased violence and displacement. A typical sweep, like one experienced by WRAP members in Denver, involves police officers arriving at encampments, often in harsh weather conditions, and giving residents minimal time to pack up before city workers begin discarding their belongings.
Forced displacement is always traumatic. If Grants Pass wins, it will become easier for police to dismantle encampments and jail people for refusing to leave their tents or vehicles. This would allow governments more leeway to “disappear” people, pushing them from block to block and city to city, with less fear of litigation.
### Historical Context
The criminalization of poverty and homelessness has deep roots in American history. From the genocidal theft of Indigenous lands to anti-poor laws brought over by early colonizers, governments have long used laws to control public space. Vagrancy laws, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws were all used to control marginalized communities, including Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, as well as disabled individuals.
In the 20th century, Anti-Okie laws targeted displaced farmers during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. These laws punished the presence of displaced individuals living in “shanty towns.” Today, laws banning camping, like the one in Grants Pass, continue this trend of criminalizing poverty.
### Banishment Today
When elected officials in Grants Pass enacted the anti-camping ordinance, they made it clear that their goal was to banish unhoused people from the city. This is part of a broader pattern where governments legislate against groups that threaten the status quo. Instead of providing public housing and other supports, officials often resort to banishing those who cannot afford housing.
The actions of local governments imply that homelessness is only a problem if it is visible. These efforts to make unhoused people disappear can be described as “invisible laws”: if you can’t see homeless people, then the issue is perceived as resolved. However, this is far from the truth.
### Fighting Back
The fight against these laws is not just about winning or losing; it is about building community and letting poor and unhoused people know that they are not alone. When the reality of unhoused individuals is respected and celebrated in the public domain, it builds power and fosters change. Dignity, respect, celebration, accountability, and love are the building blocks of community organizing.
### Supreme Court Deliberations
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could drastically alter how cities across the U.S. deal with homeless encampments. If the justices side with Grants Pass, they could roll back limits that have curtailed cities’ ability to clear encampments and punish campers. Two prior Ninth Circuit rulings determined that penalizing an unhoused person for camping in public, if they have nowhere else to sleep, violates the Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The justices appeared divided along ideological lines during oral arguments. Liberal justices seemed more sympathetic to the homeless residents’ arguments, while conservative justices scrutinized the rationale used in prior rulings. The key question is whether the Grants Pass ordinance criminalizes the status of being homeless or the behavior of camping in public.
### Public Response
As the justices considered the case, hundreds of people rallied in front of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C., as well as in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, to speak out against criminalizing homelessness. Activists, attorneys, and currently and formerly homeless individuals gathered to protest encampment sweeps and advocate for the rights of unhoused people.
### Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected in late June, will have far-reaching implications for cities across the country, particularly in California, where nearly half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless population resides. The outcome will determine whether cities can continue to criminalize unhoused individuals for basic survival activities or if the current protections will remain in place.
Source: CalMatters, ACLU
