Washington — The Supreme Court is convening Monday to hear arguments in a dispute over whether laws that ban public camping violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The case is the most significant involving homelessness to come before the nation's highest court in decades, and its outcome could impact how cities and states respond to high rates of homelessness that have given rise to encampments on public property.
The dispute involves the constitutionality of laws that punish homeless people with civil citations for camping on public property. Arguments come as the nation confronts a spike in homelessness driven in part by high housing costs, and a ruling is likely to reach beyond the borders of the Oregon city at the center of the dispute.
There were an estimated 256,000 unsheltered people in the U.S. on a given night in 2023, according to a December report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homelessness rose 12% from 2022 to 2023, its highest level since tracking began in 2007, the report found, as housing prices soared and pandemic-era assistance programs expired.
Within the heart of the matter lies Grants Pass, a city nestled in southern Oregon, home to approximately 40,000 residents. The city has established ordinances that prohibit camping or sleeping on public property or within city parks. According to the city's regulations, a "campsite" is described as "any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed."
Individuals who violate these ordinances may face fines starting at $295, and repeat offenders could potentially be prohibited from entering a city park for up to 30 days. Should a person defy this order and camp in a park, they would be charged with criminal trespass, which carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,250.
Court documents reveal that between 2013 and 2018, the city issued over 500 citations, claiming to enforce the ordinances "with moderation." A policy from the Grants Pass Department of Public Safety explicitly states that "homelessness is not a crime," and the department does not utilize homelessness as the sole basis for detention or legal action.
In 2018, three homeless individuals in Grants Pass initiated a lawsuit against the city on behalf of the homeless community, alleging that the public sleeping and camping ordinances violated their Eighth Amendment rights, which protect against cruel and unusual punishment.
A federal district court in Oregon sided with the plaintiffs, prohibiting Grants Pass from enforcing the public-camping ordinances during the daytime without 24-hour notice and entirely at night for the city's estimated 600 homeless residents. A divided panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the district court's decision regarding the public-camping regulations.
"The City of Grants Pass finds itself unable to enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who seek shelter by sleeping outdoors with basic protection from the elements, or by resting in their vehicles at night, in the absence of alternative accommodations within the city," Judge Roslyn Silver, a member of the 9th Circuit panel, expressed in a written opinion representing the majority viewpoint.
The complete 9th Circuit chose not to revisit the case, despite dissent from 13 active judges and four senior judges.
Officials from Grants Pass have taken the ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that issuing "modest" fines and brief jail sentences for camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
They contended that upholding the decision hinders governments from "proactively addressing the serious social problems associated with the homelessness crisis" and jeopardizes numerous other criminal prohibitions.
"The homelessness crisis poses a significant challenge for communities of all sizes across the nation. However, '[n]ot every challenge we face is constitutional in character,'" the city's legal representatives stated in a submission. "Moreover, the solution does not involve stretching the Eighth Amendment beyond its intended scope and placing the responsibility for managing this urgent social issue solely in the hands of federal courts."
Contrarily, Ed Johnson, the director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center who initiated the lawsuit on behalf of the homeless population in Grants Pass, argued that the term "camping" in the city's ordinances is deceptive.
Challenging City Laws on Homelessness
A recent case brought before the Supreme Court questions the legality of city laws that penalize homeless individuals for residing on public property when they have no alternative shelter.
The plaintiff, Johnson, argues that it is unconstitutional for a city to criminalize sleeping or resting on any part of city land at any time, particularly for those who lack access to housing. The lawsuit contends that such laws in Grants Pass make it virtually impossible for homeless individuals to exist in the city without facing fines and imprisonment.
Dealing with a Homelessness Crisis
Various advocacy groups, law enforcement agencies, and governmental bodies have become involved in the debate, reflecting the widespread concern over addressing the homelessness crisis in the country.
The Justice Department's recent filing acknowledged the 9th Circuit's ruling that the Eighth Amendment prohibits local governments from criminalizing homelessness by banning individuals without shelter from residing in certain areas. However, it argued that individual circumstances should be considered when applying this principle, criticizing the lower court for issuing overly broad injunctive relief.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar raised concerns that such broad injunctions could hinder cities' ability to address public health and safety issues related to encampments. She urged the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision and send the case back for further review.
Various major cities, including Phoenix and San Francisco, have petitioned the justices to grant them the authority to manage homeless encampments in the interest of public safety. Phoenix and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns emphasized the need for municipalities to intervene when public safety is at risk, while San Francisco highlighted the impact of the 9th Circuit's decision on its ability to enforce laws related to homeless encampments.
"The city finds itself in a state of paralysis, unable to execute the proposed policy directives of its Mayor and local legislature; unable to uphold the mandates of San Francisco voters; unable to empower conscientious City employees to carry out their duties; and unable to safeguard its public spaces," legal representatives for the city stated in their submission, which was made in a neutral stance towards both parties.
The rulings made by the lower courts have had a detrimental impact on both the housed and unhoused populations of San Francisco, leading to blocked and inaccessible sidewalks, hazardous encampments, and a decrease in unhoused individuals seeking assistance," they added.
A verdict from the Supreme Court is anticipated to be delivered by the conclusion of June.
