City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
Case Overview
The Supreme Court considered whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from enforcing anti-camping ordinances that impose criminal penalties on homeless individuals who sleep in public spaces when no adequate shelter alternatives are available, resolving a circuit split between the Ninth Circuit's ruling that such enforcement constitutes status-based punishment and the government's position that sleeping outdoors is conduct subject to ordinary criminal regulation.
BrynoDC Coverage 6 videos
The Facts
Grants Pass, Oregon, enforced ordinances prohibiting sleeping, camping, or using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for bedding in public spaces. Homeless individuals sued, arguing the ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment under the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. Boise decision, which held that cities could not penalize unavoidable conduct like sleeping outside when there are insufficient shelter beds for the homeless population. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but Grants Pass appealed, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve the constitutional question.
The Application
The majority applied Powell's principle that conduct may be regulated criminally, even when tied to unavoidable circumstances, by characterizing Grants Pass's ordinances as targeting sleeping or camping behavior rather than homelessness itself. Although plaintiffs argued the ordinances effectively punished status because sleeping was unavoidable without adequate shelter, the Court distinguished Robinson by holding that neutral conduct restrictions do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment merely because they burden persons in a particular status. The ruling therefore permitted enforcement of camping ordinances without requiring municipalities to prove sufficient shelter capacity, rejecting the Ninth Circuit's shelter-based framework from Martin v. Boise.
The Conclusion
**Decided June 28, 2024. The Court held 6-3 that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment does not bar cities from enforcing camping and sleeping bans on homeless persons in public spaces.** The majority distinguished Robinson, holding that camping ordinances regulate conduct, not status. Cities may enforce such laws regardless of local shelter availability. The ruling gave municipalities broad authority to clear homeless encampments.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support