January 2nd 2025 | Henry Yao & Gabriel Hao
Edited by Helina Franklin
The city of Grants Pass, a small town located in southern Oregon, hosts a population of around 38,000. Currently, 50 to 600 individuals remain unhoused and lack access to shelter. Some of the unhoused are forced out to seek shelter in public facilities like parks or streets due to a limited number of beds available for shelter. But such actions were consequently prohibited by several laws within the Grants Pass City Code, which included several anti-sleeping and anti-public camping ordinances. Several plaintiffs made their case in a class action lawsuit, which argued that Grants Pass was violating the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause; this was then validated by the Ninth Circuit. Grants Pass then appealed to the Supreme Court, who ultimately overturned the City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson case in a 6-3 majority decision. It concluded that local governments had the right to enforce regulations preventing public camping on the streets, and that the city did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the case is the latest in contentious debates regarding the magnitude of punishment dealt to individuals, or more specifically, the magnitude of the excessiveness of that punishment, and whether it violates the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. This question was argued in Robinson v. California (1962), which examined whether criminalizing a narcotics addiction violated the Eighth Amendment. In Robinson, the Supreme Court argued in a 6-2 majority ruling that the state could not punish people for their “status” as a drug addict, and hence the state violated the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause in penalizing the defendant. This ruling was later applied in Martin v. City of Boise (2019), where the plaintiff argued that preventing the homeless from camping outside when no shelter was available was inherently in violation of the Eighth Amendment— it penalized the “status” of being homeless itself. The Ninth Circuit supported the plaintiff’s argument by concluding that prohibitions on sleeping was a penalization of the status of being homeless since it prevented the homeless from existing in public spaces if shelters remained unavailable. The Martin case ruling was eventually expanded upon in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, where the plaintiff argued that beyond merely issuing criminal fines, issuing civil citations violated the Eighth Amendment.
In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, the concept of the status of homelessness being punished was contested. The Court argued that the case itself was fundamentally different from Robinson v. California, in that this case was arguing against acts of conduct, specifically sleeping and camping, as opposed to the status of being homeless itself. The court turned to Powell v. Texas (1968) for precedent, which argued that laws penalizing public intoxication were fundamentally different from a person’s criminalization if he or she held the status of an alcoholic. The Supreme Court ultimately flipped the strategy of using “status” as an argument against the Eighth Amendment. Further, it switched away from the precedent of ruling against local power and instead found that the Ninth Circuit inappropriately limited local governmental power in its address regarding the issue of homelessness, which is a drastic change from prior cases that stripped power from local governments:
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not” [3].
The Supreme Court’s decision essentially places the power to decide punishment in the hands of local governments and communities, and concludes that the Eighth Amendment did not prevent local officials from developing their own punishments to solve the city’s homelessness problem. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit had stripped power from local governments in determining forms of punishment and regulation that could be codified against the homeless. With the ruling of this case, however, power was returned to local officials and gave them the power to decide camping regulations on the homeless. Yet this ruling leaves the debate on the magnitude of excessive punishment open for extensive argument. The original injunction by the District Court was based on the premise that Grants Pass violated both the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, as well as the Excessive Fines Clause. But the city’s appealing argument only challenged the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause Finding, which left the Excessive Fines Clause Finding open for interpretation: are $300 fines that the homeless cannot pay in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment? The debate on the magnitude of excessive punishment remains an open question.
From 1962 to 2019, and ultimately in 2024, one can appreciate how the debate on the power that local governments hold over individual punishment has evolved significantly based on the magnitude of excessive punishment viewpoint. The overturn of Grants Pass v. Johnson empowered the local governments to create more regulations and articles on reasonable camping. The government now has greater freedom in deciding the appropriate punishment for regulation violations regarding homelessness and camping that lead to issues of public health, due to a decreased possibility of getting sued for “cruel and unusual punishment.”
A direct result of the Grants Pass v. Johnson‘s ruling is that Oregon seeks to pass a new series of regulations that adds onto the state’s current statute that controls homeless sheltering. The current statue HB3115 provides the following restrictions: 1) Reasonable time restrictions: allows a homeless person to shelter during traditional sleeping hours, that is from sundown to sunrise; 2) Reasonable place restrictions: camping can be banned from specific places such as parks where children often play at, central downtown parks, schools, hospitals, government buildings, and residential areas; and 3) Reasonable manner restrictions: what the homeless use as a shelter can be deemed reasonable by the government based on weather and environmental contexts. The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties want to revise House Bill 3115 and to make further specifications for the bill’s restrictions. To further accommodate the new ruling and expand upon current regulations, the LOC passed a new homelessness legal guide for local governments to follow when making city specific responses to the homelessness issues. The guideline specifies a series of allowed and prohibited actions.
Grants Pass v. Johnson‘s ruling also had a greater impact on the rest of the country. Neighboring states like California and Washington reacted to this new change as well. For example, Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement after the ruling by the Supreme Court:
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives” [7].
California’s elected officials have found themselves embroiled in multi-year lawsuits that block the logical efforts to clear homeless encampments that pose health and safety issues for the longest time. The state government’s prime concern is still to prioritize the fundamental needs of all citizens and to help those who need further aid. This is almost impossible to achieve, however, with the past ambiguity of the issues surrounding the Eighth Amendment (i.e., what is a necessary or uncruel punishment for homelessness) and the problems posed by public camps. But California currently sets an example as the state government invests $1 billion into its Encampment Resolution Fund that provides avenues of homelessness support.
Sources:
[1] Mylander, Kirk. “Exploring the Implications of the U. S. Supreme Court Decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson.” League of Oregon Cities, August 2024. https://www.orcities.org/resources/communications/local-focus/implications-grants-pass-v-johnson
[2] “City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, June 28, 2024. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson/#:~:text=In%20analyzing%20cases%20under%20the,their%20homelessness%2C%20not%20their%20conduct
[3] City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al., 603 U. S. __ (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
[4] Bomboy, Scott. “Justices uphold ordinances regulating public homeless encampments.” National Constitution Center, July 1, 2024. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-upholds-ordinances-regulating-public-homeless-encampments
[5] “City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.” Oyez. Accessed January 2, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175
[6] Cornfield, Jerry. “Washington cities can now penalize those sleeping outdoors, but will they?” Washington State Standard, June 28, 2024. https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/06/28/washington-cities-can-now-penalize-those-sleeping-outdoors-but-will-they/
[7] “Governor Newsom statement on Supreme Court’s homeless encampments decision.” Governor of California, June 28, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/28/governor-newsom-statement-on-supreme-courts-homeless-encampments-decision/
JHULR 
Leave a comment