In a major opinion affecting how cities address homelessness, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that an Oregon city’s public camping ban on “involuntarily” homeless people did not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition “Cruel and unusual” punishment provisions.
“The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause focuses on the question of what ‘method or kind of punishment’ the government can impose upon a criminal conviction, not the question of whether the government can criminalize a particular conduct in the first place,” Judge Neil Gogh Saatchi wrote. City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Since the penalties for violating the Grants Pass camping ban include only a warning, a small civil fine and up to 30 days in jail, Gorsuch argued that this did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Five other conservative justices sided with Gorsuch, while the court’s three liberal justices dissented.
Homeless advocates have strongly condemned the idea, arguing it would give cities a blank check to criminalize homelessness and lock up people with nowhere to go.
“Cities now have more power to ignore proven housing-based solutions and arrest or fine people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors,” the National Law Center on the Homeless said in a statement.
this grants pass The case stems from a lawsuit filed by two homeless men against the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over its enforcement of a local public camping ban. The plaintiffs argue that enforcing a camping ban on people sleeping outside or in their cars effectively criminalizes the “status” of being homeless in violation of the Eighth Amendment because there are no shelter beds “available” in the town. case.
The plaintiffs relied on a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in a 2018 case martin v. boise The city cannot enforce the camping ban when there are no shelter beds available.
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Martin Decision blocks Grants Pass from enforcing camping ban. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s injunction, prompting Grant Pass to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the court agreed to take up the case.
A bipartisan coalition of state and local officials and interest groups has long argued that the Ninth Circuit’s Martin The ruling effectively tied their hands when trying to address homelessness; leaving them effectively unable to maintain order in public spaces and get homeless people into shelters.
Everyone from California Governor Gavin Newsom to the free-market Goldwater Institute has urged the Supreme Court to strike down the bill Martin Decide.
Gorsuch’s argument places significant weight on cities’ complaints that as long as Martin Restrictions on enforcement of the public camping ban remain in place.
“The phenomenon of homelessness is complex. There are many causes. So too may the public policy responses needed to address the problem. Ultimately, the question raised by this case is whether the Eighth Amendment empowers federal judges to evaluate those causes and formulate those responses. main responsibility for the measures.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for three liberal dissidents, argued that the sweeping nature of the Grants Pass camping ban did qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
The city “jails and fines people who sleep in public places at any time, including in cars, as long as they use only a blanket for warmth or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow.” This is a punishment for homeless people. Is unconscionable and unconstitutional,” she wrote.
Gorsuch’s majority opinion quoted extensively from local government associations, which argued that Martin This decision resulted in a surge in homelessness and severe constraints on their ability to respond to the crisis. (These taxpayer-funded associations are often the biggest opponents of legislation that removes regulatory barriers to local new housing construction.)
Sotomayor also took issue with Gorsuch’s extensive citation of these local government associations, writing, “Most of them focus almost exclusively on the needs of local government, leaving the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice. : Stay sober or get arrested.
