Supreme Court Allows Cities to Enforce Public Camping Bans, Overturning Ninth Circuit

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities can enforce laws prohibiting camping on public property, even when applied to homeless individuals with nowhere else to go. The 6-3 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson overturns a controversial Ninth Circuit precedent that had limited such enforcement over the past several years in cities up and down the West Coast. The case centered on ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, that ban sleeping or camping in public spaces. Homeless residents challenged these laws, arguing they violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch stated that the Eighth Amendment primarily deals with punishments after conviction, not what behaviors can be criminalized. The Court rejected arguments that the laws effectively criminalize homelessness itself, instead viewing them as regulating specific conduct. The decision gives cities more flexibility in managing public spaces and addressing homelessness. The decision marks a significant shift in how courts may view laws affecting homeless populations and could influence policies nationwide. Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the Supreme Court Opinion: Supreme Court opinion for the case City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al., decided on June 28, 2024. Case Background: Grants Pass, Oregon has ordinances prohibiting camping on public property. These laws were challenged by homeless individuals as violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Lower courts ruled in favor of the homeless plaintiffs, following the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Martin v. Boise. Majority Opinion (Justice Gorsuch): Reversed the lower court's decision. Held that enforcing public camping laws does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Reasoning: a) The Eighth Amendment primarily concerns punishments after conviction, not what can be criminalized. b) The ordinances criminalize conduct (camping), not status (homelessness). c) Robinson v. California, which prohibited criminalizing drug addiction status, doesn't apply here. d) Rejected extending Robinson to cover "involuntary" conduct. Emphasized cities' need for flexibility in addressing homelessness. Criticized the Ninth Circuit's Martin decision as unworkable and beyond judicial competence. Concurring Opinion (Justice Thomas): Agreed with the majority but argued Robinson was wrongly decided. Questioned whether civil penalties fall under the Eighth Amendment at all. Dissenting Opinion (Justice Sotomayor): Argued the ordinances effectively criminalize homelessness, violating the Eighth Amendment. Emphasized the ordinances target status, not just conduct. Contended the majority misapplied Robinson and Powell v. Texas. Highlighted the harsh realities of homelessness and the negative impacts of criminalization. Suggested other potential legal challenges to such ordinances (e.g., Due Process, Excessive Fines). Broader Context: Case reflects ongoing debates about how to address homelessness. Highlights tension between local government authority and constitutional protections. Discusses challenges faced by both homeless individuals and cities trying to manage public spaces. Impact: Overturns Ninth Circuit precedent limiting enforcement of public camping laws. Gives cities more leeway to enforce such laws against homeless individuals. May lead to further litigation on related issues under different legal theories. The decision was 6-3, with the Court's conservative majority prevailing over the liberal justices' dissent. Read the entire Supreme Court opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf