In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted cities the authority to ban homeless individuals from sleeping outdoors if no shelter is available. This ruling, stemming from the case City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, could have far-reaching implications for local ordinances addressing homelessness across the nation.
During the oral arguments, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court leaned towards supporting the Oregon town’s law, emphasizing that homelessness policies are complex and should be managed by local elected officials rather than the judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the appropriateness of the Supreme Court making policy judgments, suggesting that such decisions are better left to local representatives.
Conversely, the liberal justices expressed concern that the Grants Pass ordinance unfairly targeted homeless individuals by penalizing them for the basic human need to sleep. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the city’s approach, arguing that it effectively criminalized homelessness by imposing fines on those who camped outside.
The case originated in Grants Pass, a city in northwest Oregon, which argued that its ordinance was a necessary measure to address the local homelessness crisis. The city, with a population of nearly 40,000, has approximately 600 homeless individuals, but only one nonprofit shelter capable of housing up to 100 people. The ordinance in question prohibited camping and sleeping in public spaces, with violations resulting in fines and potential jail time.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the enforcement of the local ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” The attorney representing the city, Theane Evangelis, argued that the ordinance targeted the conduct of establishing a campsite rather than the status of being homeless. However, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Kelsi B. Corkran, contended that the ordinance punished individuals for their status as homeless, as it defined a campsite as any place where a homeless person was covered with a blanket.
The case has significant implications beyond Grants Pass, potentially affecting cities across the United States, particularly in the West, where similar ordinances are in place. According to recent U.S. Census data, there are nearly 327,000 homeless individuals in the country, with states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Montana having the highest rates of homelessness.
Outside the Supreme Court, advocates for the homeless gathered to support the injunction against the city ordinance. Sarae Lewis, a spokesperson for Community Solutions, emphasized that homelessness is a result of systemic issues such as a lack of affordable housing and well-paying jobs. She argued that arresting and fining people for sleeping on the streets is ineffective and distracts from real solutions.
The city of Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, who are homeless residents of the city. A federal judge had blocked the city’s ordinance, which prohibited camping and sleeping in public spaces and barred homeless individuals from using blankets or other materials to protect themselves from the weather. Violations of the ordinance carried a $295 fine, which could increase to over $530 if unpaid, and repeat offenders faced up to 30 days in jail.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously determined that the city’s restrictions were so stringent that they effectively banned homelessness, relying on the precedent set by the 2018 case Martin v. City of Boise. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that prosecuting homeless individuals for sleeping on public property when no shelter was available violated the Eighth Amendment.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Oregon had enacted a statute codifying the Martin case, which required city regulations to be objectively reasonable regarding time, place, and manner for people experiencing homelessness. Evangelis argued that the new law was not similar to the Martin case and that the city ordinance considered community safety.
Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting the connection between homelessness and sleeping outside. Evangelis maintained that the ordinance targeted conduct rather than the status of homelessness, emphasizing that the law did not criminalize being homeless.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether homelessness could be considered a status under the Robinson v. California case, which barred the criminalization of drug addiction. Evangelis disagreed, arguing that homelessness is a fluid experience that can change daily.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about whether the city’s ordinance was a constitutional issue or a policy one, questioning the adequacy of shelter beds. Evangelis argued that it was unworkable to count available beds and determine their adequacy.
The Biden administration took a neutral stance, issuing a brief that neither supported nor opposed either party. The brief agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Idaho case but argued that cities should be allowed to enforce restrictions for public health and safety.
The Supreme Court’s decision to permit cities to ban homeless individuals from sleeping outside without shelter marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over how to address homelessness. While the ruling grants local governments more authority to manage homelessness, it also raises questions about the balance between public safety and the rights of homeless individuals.
Source: Various News Agencies
