The U.S. Supreme Court has recently made a significant ruling that allows laws criminalizing homelessness and public sleeping to stand, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for local ordinances across the country. This ruling comes in the context of the case City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, which has sparked a nationwide debate on the criminalization of homelessness.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling in Martin v. Boise means that people experiencing homelessness cannot be criminally punished for sleeping outside on public property if there are no available alternatives. This decision is binding for states within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, and sets a significant national precedent.
The Martin v. Boise case, led by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), Idaho Legal Aid Services, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenged Boise’s enforcement of its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances. These ordinances allowed for the criminal punishment of people experiencing homelessness for sleeping in public spaces. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that criminalizing people experiencing homelessness for sleeping in public, in the absence of adequate alternatives, constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” and violates their Eighth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to let the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stand has been met with mixed reactions. Some city officials in California and other Western states have expressed disapproval, arguing that the ruling makes it more difficult to provide services to those in need and poses a public health and safety hazard. However, advocates for the homeless, including the NLCHP, have lauded the decision, noting that criminalizing homelessness does not address the underlying causes of homelessness and violates the civil rights of those experiencing it.
In a statement on the decision, NLCHP President and CEO Diane Yentel emphasized the need for cities to stop criminalizing homelessness and instead work towards providing real solutions, starting with access to safe, affordable, and accessible homes. The Supreme Court’s decision may complicate efforts by the Trump administration to incentivize the use of local law enforcement in response to homelessness, as the ruling underscores the importance of addressing homelessness through supportive measures rather than punitive ones.
The case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, could further shape the legal landscape regarding the criminalization of homelessness. During oral arguments, conservative justices indicated that policies and ordinances around homelessness are complex and should be left to local elected representatives rather than the courts. In contrast, the liberal justices argued that Grants Pass officials went too far in targeting homeless people with fines for the basic human need to sleep.
The case originated in Grants Pass, a city in northwest Oregon, where an ordinance bans homeless people from sleeping outdoors. The city argues that its ordinance is a solution to the homelessness crisis, while an attorney representing a group of homeless people contends that the ordinance criminalizes homelessness through fines and potential jail time for camping or sleeping in outdoor spaces. The town of nearly 40,000 has about 600 homeless people, but the only nonprofit shelter can house only up to 100 beds.
The justices are being asked to decide whether the enforcement of the local ordinance regulating camping on public property violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment. The attorney representing the city argued that the ordinance targets the conduct of unhoused people rather than the status of homelessness. In contrast, the attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that the ordinance punishes the status of being homeless.
The case could have significant implications for cities across the U.S., particularly in the West, where similar ordinances are in place. According to recent U.S. Census data, nearly 327,000 people are homeless in the country, with states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Montana having the highest populations of homeless people per 10,000 residents.
Outside the court, advocates gathered to show their support for the injunction that bars the city ordinance from taking effect. They argued that homelessness results from systemic issues such as a lack of affordable housing, exorbitant rents, and a shortage of well-paying jobs. Arresting and fining people for sleeping on the streets is seen as ineffective and counterproductive, as it keeps people homeless for longer and distracts from real solutions.
The city of Grants Pass is appealing to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who are homeless residents of the city. A federal judge blocked the city’s ordinance that prohibited people from camping and sleeping in parks and on public property. The ordinance also barred homeless people from using blankets, pillows, or other materials to protect themselves from the weather while sleeping outside. Violating the ordinance carried a $295 fine, which could increase to more than $530 if not paid, and repeat offenders could be jailed for up to 30 days.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision relied on the 2018 case Martin v. City of Boise, which found that Boise’s ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing criminal penalties for homeless people sleeping outside or on public property when they do not have access to a shelter.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Oregon has enacted a statute codifying the Martin case, which requires city regulations to be objectively reasonable regarding time, place, and manner for people experiencing homelessness. The attorney representing the city argued that the new law was not similar to the Martin case and that the city ordinance considers the community’s safety.
The Biden administration has taken a neutral stance, issuing a brief that neither supports nor opposes either party. The brief agrees with the Ninth Circuit decision in the Idaho case but argues that cities should be allowed to enforce restrictions for the health and safety of their residents.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this case will have significant implications for how cities across the country address homelessness. It remains to be seen whether the court will uphold the Ninth Circuit’s decision or grant cities more power to enforce ordinances that criminalize homelessness.
Source: National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National Low Income Housing Coalition, U.S. Supreme Court
