City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson
603 U. S. ____ (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which is directed at the method or kind of punishment imposed, does not prohibit the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property against homeless individuals who lack access to alternative shelter.
Facts:
- The City of Grants Pass, Oregon, has an estimated 600 homeless individuals within its population of roughly 38,000.
- Grants Pass enacted ordinances prohibiting sleeping on public sidewalks, streets, or alleyways and camping on any public property.
- Camping is defined to include setting up bedding or a sleeping bag for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live, including within a vehicle.
- The city has no public, city-run emergency shelter beds for the homeless.
- The only local shelter is a privately run Gospel Rescue Mission, which requires residents to abstain from smoking and attend religious services.
- Violations of the ordinances begin with civil fines, can escalate to a 30-day park exclusion order for repeat offenders, and a violation of that order can lead to criminal trespass charges punishable by up to 30 days in jail.
- The named plaintiffs, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, are homeless residents of Grants Pass who sleep in their vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Johnson and other homeless individuals filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Grants Pass in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- The plaintiffs claimed the city's anti-camping ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.
- The District Court certified the class and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the ordinances against involuntarily homeless individuals.
- The City of Grants Pass, the appellant, appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction in relevant part.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the city's petition for rehearing en banc.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the City of Grants Pass's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the enforcement of generally applicable ordinances prohibiting camping on public property against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorsuch
No, the enforcement of generally applicable ordinances prohibiting camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The Clause is primarily directed at the method or kind of punishment a government may impose after conviction, not on what conduct may be criminalized. The penalties imposed by Grants Pass—fines and a potential short jail term—are neither cruel in method nor unusual in practice. The Ninth Circuit's reliance on Robinson v. California was misplaced because Robinson only forbids criminalizing a 'mere status,' whereas the Grants Pass ordinances regulate conduct (the act of camping) applicable to any person, regardless of their housing status. The Court rejects extending Robinson to 'involuntary' acts, adhering to the precedent set in Powell v. Texas, which distinguished between the status of being an alcoholic and the act of being drunk in public. The Ninth Circuit's framework from Martin v. Boise created an unworkable, judicially-created test that embroiled federal courts in complex local policy questions about homelessness, a matter properly left to the democratic process.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
The ordinances are permissible, and the Court's opinion is correct. However, Robinson v. California was wrongly decided because it was based on 'contemporary human knowledge' rather than the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, and it should be overruled in an appropriate case. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause even applies to the initial civil fines and exclusion orders, as the Clause historically addressed punishments for the commission of a crime, not civil penalties that might speculatively lead to criminal charges.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes, punishing homeless individuals for the biological necessity of sleeping outside when they have no access to shelter is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The majority's distinction between status and conduct is a formalistic evasion; the ordinances effectively criminalize the status of being homeless because sleeping outside is an unavoidable consequence of that status for those with no shelter. The purpose and enforcement of the ordinances confirm they were intended to punish people for being homeless and drive them from the city. This is a straightforward application of Robinson v. California, which forbids punishing a person's status. The majority abdicates its constitutional duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society from unconscionable and unconstitutional punishment.
Analysis:
This decision decisively overturns the Ninth Circuit's framework established in Martin v. Boise, which had significantly shaped homelessness policy and litigation across the western United States. By narrowly construing the Eighth Amendment's substantive limits to only pure 'status' crimes under Robinson, the Court has greatly strengthened the ability of municipalities to enforce public camping ordinances. This ruling effectively closes the primary avenue for federal constitutional challenges to such laws under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Future legal battles over these ordinances will likely shift to state law or other constitutional grounds, such as the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Fines Clause.
