Supreme Court Ruling Allows Enforcing Public Camping Bans Amid Homelessness Debate

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a pivotal 6-3 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, affirming that local governments can enforce ordinances prohibiting individuals from sleeping or camping in public spaces, even when no alternative shelter is available. This ruling has significant implications for municipalities nationwide, potentially influencing how cities address homelessness and enforce public camping bans.

The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, where city ordinances imposed fines and potential jail time on individuals using items like blankets or cardboard for sleeping outdoors. In 2018, three longtime Grants Pass residents—Debra Blake, John Logan, and Gloria Johnson—filed a class-action lawsuit challenging these ordinances, arguing they violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Martin v. City of Boise, which held that punishing homeless individuals for sleeping in public when no shelter is available constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson overturned these lower court decisions, allowing the enforcement of such ordinances.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, stating that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The majority emphasized that the Constitution does not mandate specific homelessness policies and that such matters are best addressed by local governments.

In contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissenting opinion, arguing that penalizing individuals for sleeping in public when no shelter is available is both inhumane and unconstitutional. She highlighted that such ordinances effectively criminalize the status of being homeless, rather than specific conduct.

The ruling has elicited varied responses from municipalities and advocacy groups. Advocates for the homeless have criticized the decision, expressing concerns that it criminalizes homelessness rather than addressing its root causes, such as the shortage of affordable housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) condemned the ruling, stating that it "gives cover to elected officials who choose political expediency over real solutions by merely moving unhoused people out of public view rather than working to solve their homelessness."

In response to the ruling, some cities have begun reviewing and revising their policies on homelessness. For instance, Portland, Oregon, is assessing how the decision interacts with state laws requiring restrictions on outdoor living to be "objectively reasonable." Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler expressed hope that the ruling would prompt state lawmakers to revise existing laws to better address the homelessness crisis.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the ongoing tension between public safety concerns and the rights of homeless individuals. While some view the ruling as empowering local governments to manage public spaces more effectively, others fear it may lead to increased criminalization of homelessness without addressing underlying issues. The decision also raises questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy and the extent to which constitutional protections apply to vulnerable populations.

As municipalities navigate the implications of this ruling, the broader conversation about effective and humane solutions to homelessness continues. The challenge remains to balance the enforcement of public ordinances with the provision of adequate shelter and support services, ensuring that policies do not inadvertently exacerbate the very issues they aim to resolve.