Grants Pass v. Johnson: How the Case Affects the Homeless

Question: Do cities that enforce no-public-camping laws against homeless individuals without shelter options violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? The U.S. Supreme Court's answer: No. 

The Supreme Court’s June 28, 2024, ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson means unhoused persons are not exempt from local no-public-camping laws. This includes the fines and jail time that come with violations of those laws — even if there are no available shelter spaces. 

The effects of the Grants Pass ruling on the homeless population were rapid, particularly in California, where one-third of the nation’s homeless population lives. Thirty days after the ruling, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring state agencies to address encampments of unhoused persons. 

Governor Newsom was among the politicians who supported the Supreme Court’s decision, as the ruling made the issue of homelessness local rather than federal. 

Context

Like other U.S. cities, Grants Pass, Oregon, has a law prohibiting people from camping on public property or parking in city parks overnight. First-time violators are fined, second-time violators are issued an order, and third-time violators may be sent to jail. 

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of unhoused individuals, argued that imposing the no-public-camping law on homeless persons violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They claimed this violation occurs when the city has no available shelter options.

Legal Precedent

In support of their argument, plaintiffs relied on the following prior rulings: 

• Martin v. Boise (2019): In which the Ninth Circuit held it is cruel and unusual punishment for a city to enforce a public camping ban against homeless persons because they have no choice but to camp if the city lacks available shelter options.

• Robinson v. State of California (1962): In which the U.S. Supreme Court held it was cruel and unusual punishment for California to punish persons for being addicted to narcotics because the punishment was based on their "status" as addicts, as opposed to their actions.

Plaintiffs argued that the Grants Pass ordinances violated Martin by enforcing a no-camping ban against persons who were "involuntarily" homeless due to the city's lack of housing options. They also claimed the ordinances violated Robinson by punishing individuals for their homeless status.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and held Grants Pass could not enforce its camping ban against the unhoused as long as there were no available shelter options. 

Supreme Court Ruling in Grants Pass

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit (and overturned Martin), holding that the Grants Pass public camping ban did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. 

Robinson Limits State’s Power to Penalize a Person’s Status but Not Their Conduct

The Supreme Court noted that Robinson banned the state from punishing individuals for their status but did not limit the state’s power to ban certain conduct. The Supreme Court held that because the Grants Pass camping ban applies to anyone who camps in public (i.e., even someone who is not unhoused), it doesn’t criminalize the status of homelessness. 

The Eighth Amendment Regulates How — Not Whether — a State May Punish 

The Supreme Court explained that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment limits only the type of punishment a local authority is permitted to impose against a person for a particular offense. It does not limit whether the authority may punish an offense in the first place. 

Punishments of Fines and Jail Time Are Neither Cruel nor Unusual

In terms of types of punishment, the Supreme Court explained that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that are:  

• "Cruel" — meaning those devised to result in "terror, pain, or disgrace"

• "Unusual" — meaning those that have "long fallen out of use" 

The Supreme Court held that because the punishments (fines and jail time) issued by Grants Pass for violations of no-camping bans are both pain-free and commonplace, they are neither cruel nor unusual. 

Practical Considerations

The Supreme Court also noted that a ruling declaring no-camping bans unlawful could lead to several practical complications for localities and law enforcement, such as:

• How would a law enforcement officer determine whether someone’s homelessness is "involuntary"? What about a person who is offered a spot in a shelter but refuses to go? 

• How would a city determine whether housing options are "available"? For instance, are non-smoking options to be deemed "available" or "unavailable" to an unhoused person who smokes? 

• How would a city determine whether its housing options are "adequate"? 

• How far would Martin go in prohibiting anti-camping laws? Would it limit only a city’s ability to ban the use of tents or blankets in public, or could it also limit its authority to ban public fires or public urination?

Because local governments are much closer to these issues, the Supreme Court held they are better able to resolve them than the federal courts, which are "removed from the realities on the ground." This is a point with which Governor Newsom, among others, agrees. 

The Future of Homeless Encampments

The Grants Pass ruling did not give communities carte blanche to address homelessness in whatever manner they choose. Lawyers who represent municipalities facing the issue would be wise to ensure their clients follow the framework approved in Grants Pass. In other words, punishment should be levied only for an individual’s conduct — not their status of being homeless. A graduated series of punishments, while not expressly required by the Supreme Court, might be wise. 

Continue Your Education With Purdue Global Law School

Stay up to date on the most current legal developments in California, Connecticut, Indiana, and the rest of the nation with Purdue Global Law School. 

Purdue Global Law School offers full-time and part-time online Juris Doctor programs. Graduates of our program are academically eligible to sit for the California or Connecticut bar or, with an approved petition, the Indiana bar. If you wish to advance your legal education but do not intend to become a practicing attorney, you may consider an online Executive Juris Doctor. 

Single law courses are also available to help you explore a particular area of law without committing to a full degree program. Request more information today.