Enforcement of Camping Restrictions is Constitutional

Summary:  Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of homeless people living in Grants Pass, Oregon, claiming that the City’s anti-camping ordinances against public camping violated the “cruel and unusual” punishment provision of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, (2024) 144 S. Ct. 2202, the United States Supreme Court held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Discussion: Grants Pass, Oregon is a City of approximately 38,000 residents with about 600 experiencing homelessness each day. As is common for public entities, Grants Pass restricts camping on public property. According to these restrictions, a single violation can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment.

In a prior decision, Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F. 3d 584 (2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause bars cities from enforcing public camping ordinances against homeless individuals whenever the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds.

The plaintiffs in this case filed a putative class action on behalf of homeless people in Grants Pass. The district court issued an injunction prohibiting Grants Pass from enforcing its laws against the homeless, pursuant to the holding in Martin. Applying Martin’s holding, the district court found everyone without a shelter in Grants Pass was involuntarily homeless, because the City’s total homeless population outnumbered the available number of shelter beds. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction. Grants Pass then filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Many California cities joined in and urged the Supreme Court to assess Martin.

 The plaintiffs contended that the ordinances in question criminalized the “mere status” of being homeless. Further, the ordinances were overwhelmingly being applied to the homeless population. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected these arguments. The Court held that Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. Rather, they prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. Further, the Court held that the complex causes of homelessness are many, as well as the possible public policy responses required to address it. The Court held that nothing within the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges responsibility for assessing those causes and devising responses. Those responsibilities rest with citizens and their local governments, and enforcement of camping restrictions was not cruel and unusual.

A copy of the case can be found here.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Mark F. Hazelwood.