- Grants Pass, Oregon was sued by its homeless unsheltered population
- City said it had the right to enforce ‘camping’ in public spaces
- The case has significant implications on homelessness policies
David Wilson sits outside his tent at Riverside Park on Thursday, March 21, 2024, in Grants Pass, Ore. Wilson was among those getting free food and breakfast brought by volunteers to the park that morning. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
(NewsNation) —The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an Oregon city that wants to impose criminal and civil penalties on people who sleep and essentially live in a public park, creating a landmark precedent for homelessness policies.
In the court’s 6-3 decision in the case Grants Pass v. Johnson, justices argued that the court cannot say the punishments Grants Pass imposes qualify as cruel and unusual.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion with Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” the three liberal justices wrote in their dissent. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April. The case reached the high court after the city’s unhoused population brought suit saying that criminalization of homelessness amounted to an Eighth Amendment constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.
They also argued that it violated the Excessive Fines Clause because Grants Pass has no low-barrier shelters to provide services to those with behavioral health or substance abuse issues.
The mountain city, which sits in the southern part of the state, has a population of nearly 40,000. Hundreds of its homeless residents camp in tents and sleep on public benches and picnic tables.
Camping on public property was prohibited under the city’s municipal code, which meant the city could issue citations to homeless residents.
About 600 homeless residents stay in tents and makeshift tarp shelters in the city park, saying they have nowhere else to go.
The city says civil and criminal punishments are necessary for enforcing laws banning homeless people from public spaces. It has been unable to meet the needs of its growing homeless population, the group argued.
Grants Pass has been identified by Oregon Housing and Community Services as severely rent burdened, and the city is dealing with a substantial housing shortage, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
After being sued, the city lost its appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s decision in favor of the unhoused.
During oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing Grants Pass told the court that cities nationwide rely on “camping laws to protect its public spaces.”
The attorney added that the appellate court tied the city’s hands “by constitutionalizing the policy debate over how to address growing encampments.”
The unhoused argued Grants Pass defines a “campsite” as anywhere a homeless person is with a blanket, making it “physically impossible for a homeless person to live in Grants Pass” without facing the prospect of fines and jail time.
The decision is poised to have wide-reaching implications for the nation’s homeless population and how cities can manage their unhoused residents.
“Camping bans” have been implemented across the country, including in Los Angeles and San Diego.
Several states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida have also tightened restrictions.
Other cities, including Milwaukee, Las Vegas, Seattle and Providence, Rhode Island, filed a brief in the Supreme Court case supporting Grants Pass.
Homelessness hit a record high last year due in part to a “sharp rise” in the number of people who became homeless for the first time, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.