WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld an Oregon local ordinance that bans homeless people from sleeping outdoors, allowing local governments to enforce those laws.
Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled 6-3 Written in the opinion Enforcement of local laws regulating camping on public lands does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
“Homelessness is complex and its causes are diverse, and therefore the public policy responses to address it can be complex as well,” he wrote. “While the Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, it does not authorize federal judges to strip Americans of those rights and responsibilities and instead dictate the nation’s homelessness policy.”
The lawsuit began in Grants Pass, Oregon, where the city argued that an ordinance that included fines and possible jail time for repeat rough and homeless offenders was the solution to the city’s homeless problem.
In a statement to States Newsroom, attorney Thean Evangelis, who represents the city, said the ruling will provide relief to local communities trying to address the issue of homeless encampments.
“The Court has restored the ability for cities on the front lines of the crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of their communities’ most vulnerable while keeping public spaces safe and clean,” she said. “I hope that years from now, we will look back on today’s landmark decision as a turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”
Get morning headlines delivered to your inbox
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the camping ban and another ban on the use of blankets on public property target homelessness and therefore violate the Eighth Amendment.
“Grants Pass’s ordinance criminalizes homelessness,” she wrote, “and the ordinance’s purpose, language, and enforcement demonstrate that it targets status, not behavior. For those without available shelter, the only way to comply with the ordinance is to leave Grants Pass altogether.”
meanwhile Oral Argument,judge They seemed ideologically divided..
Conservative justices sided with the Oregon town, arguing that homelessness policies and ordinances are complex and should be left to local elected representatives, not the courts.
The liberal justices argued that the Grants Pass ordinance criminalizes homelessness and criticized the city’s argument that homelessness is not a protected condition under the Eighth Amendment.
The Biden administration has taken a neutral stance in the case, and Deputy Attorney General Edwin Needler has offered partial support to the city.
“How we address homelessness is primarily a decision that local governments must make, and it requires a great deal of flexibility,” he said during oral argument in late April.
Homeless Crisis
The ideologically divided ruling overturns a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that had previously blocked the local law because it criminalized homelessness and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.
Grants Pass ordinances prohibit camping or sleeping in parks or public land, and prohibit the use of blankets, pillows, or other materials for sleeping outdoors. Violators are subject to a $295 fine that increases to $530 if not paid. Repeat offenders may face prison time.
But the city and a coalition of Republican and Democratic state leaders in the West, including Montana and California, have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.
“Cities across the West are reporting that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate test creates intolerable uncertainty,” Gorsuch wrote.
Cities across the United States, especially in the West, are struggling with a growing homeless problem. It’s estimated that 650,000 people were homeless on any one night in January 2023, a 12% increase from 2022. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“HUD data indicates that the overall increase in homelessness is primarily due to a sharp increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness for the first time,” the department said.
States with the highest rates of homelessness include California, Oregon, Washington and Montana, according to five-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
Gorsuch said the case relied on by the 9th Circuit was Martin v. City of Boise The lawsuit was “frivolous” on Eighth Amendment grounds. In the case, homeless plaintiffs sued the city of Boise, Idaho, after they had been fined under its camping ordinance.
Boise Mayor Lauren McLean said in an emailed statement that the ruling does not prevent the city from treating people with compassion.
“In Boise, we take care of our people, and criminalizing homelessness has never solved, and will never solve, the issues associated with homelessness,” she said. “We must address the root causes with proven strategies like permanent supportive housing that allow our residents to stay housed and thrive in their communities.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Grants Pass does not change our approach. We will continue to invest in permanent supportive housing at New Path, Park Apartments, Fire Station 5 and scattered sites across the city, providing the case management, medical care, mental health counseling, substance use disorder treatment and other supportive services people need to become healthy, independent and permanently housed.”
“The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause focuses on what ‘manner or type’ of punishment’ the government may impose following a criminal conviction, not on whether the government can criminalize particular conduct in the first place,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “The Court cannot hold that the punishment Grants Pass imposes here is cruel and unusual.”
Sotomayor argued that the ruling focuses solely on the needs of local authorities and “presents the most vulnerable in society with the impossible choice between staying awake or being arrested.”
“The Constitution provides fundamental rights to all Americans, rich or poor, homeless or unhoused,” she wrote. “This Court must protect those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular.”
“Being homeless is a crime”
Advocacy groups expressed frustration and disappointment with Friday’s decision, voicing concern that it could lead to homeless people being criminalized for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, slammed the court’s decision, arguing it will only make the crisis worse.
“Rather than addressing the problem of homelessness, simply removing homeless people from public view provides hiding place for elected officials who prioritize political expediency over real solutions,” Yentel said in a statement. “These ineffective and inhumane tactics exacerbate the homeless problem by forcing homeless people into debt they cannot repay, further isolating them from the services and supports they need to find stable housing.”
Kirsten Anderson, deputy legal director for economic justice at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement that the ruling would set a precedent that criminalizes homeless people.
“At a time when half the country cannot afford housing, the Supreme Court has ruled that being homeless is a crime — proving that Americans’ perceptions are still out of sync,” Anderson said.
Roseanne Hagerty, president of Community Solutions, a nonprofit that works to end homelessness, expressed disappointment in the decision.
“Arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness is cruel and does not solve the problem,” Hagerty said in a statement.
Idaho Capital Sun Editor-in-Chief Christina Rose contributed to this article.
