On The Front Lines
Supreme Court Upholds Oregon City Law Against Sleeping and Camping in Public, Paving the Way for Further Attempts to Criminalize Homelessness
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 6-3 ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that could have far-reaching ramifications for urban and suburban communities attempting to criminalize homelessness, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent Oregon city officials from penalizing sleeping and camping in public.
In a joint amicus brief filed with the Fines and Fees Justice Center and Street Democracy, The Rutherford Institute had argued that the City of Grant Pass’s ordinances against sleeping and camping in public violate the Excessive Fines Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that punishing people for being homeless is “unconscionable and unconstitutional,” and she pointed out that the Court did not decide whether the ordinances violate the Excessive Fines Clause, as the amicus brief argued and as the lower court can still rule.
“The homeless, by far the most vulnerable in any community, have found themselves increasingly displaced and disadvantaged by laws that will only worsen their plight,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “While we recognize the difficulties that public officials face in addressing homelessness, the use of excessive fines to penalize public sleeping does nothing to resolve the underlying problems.”
In 2013, following a discussion alluding to the need to “make it uncomfortable enough for [homeless persons] in our city so they will want to move on down the road,” officials in Grants Pass, Oregon, increased enforcement of anti-sleeping and anti-camping ordinances prohibiting homeless persons from using a blanket or a cardboard box for protection from the weather while sleeping within the City’s limits. The ordinances result in civil fines up to several hundred dollars per violation, and persons found to violate ordinances multiple times can be barred from all City property and subject to criminal prosecution for trespassing. However, as a non-profit organization serving homeless people in the area reported, “almost all of the homeless people in Grants Pass are involuntarily homeless. There is simply no place in Grants Pass for them to find affordable housing or shelter.”
In response to a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all involuntarily homeless individuals living in Grants Pass, the district court found the ordinances to be unconstitutional but noted that the City could still limit camping or sleeping at certain times and places, limit the amount of bedding materials allowed, and pursue other options to prevent the erection of encampments that cause public health and safety concerns. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mostly affirmed, holding that it is unconstitutional to punish simply sleeping in public if one has nowhere else to sleep. In upholding the ordinances, the Supreme Court concluded that decisions about how to solve homelessness must be left to state and local policymakers.
Hyland Hunt and Ruthanne M. Deutsch of Deutsch Hunt PLLC assisted with advancing the coalition’s arguments in the amicus brief.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
Case History
April 11, 2024 • Rutherford Institute Denounces Oregon City Law Against Sleeping, Camping in Public as Unconstitutional Attempt to Criminalize Homelessness
