Update: SCOTUS Reaches Decision on City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
By Kendall Murphy, JD
Legal Advocate, Project HEAL (Health, Education, Advocacy, and Law)
Kennedy Krieger Institute
Note: highlighted words can be found in the Key Terms Section at the bottom of this page.
Update:
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided the case of The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson on June 28, 2024. In this case, Gloria Johnson argued that the Grants Pass ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment because it criminalized homelessness by punishing homeless people who slept on public streets, alleyways or sidewalks.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that ordinances that regulate sleeping on public property do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision allows cities like Grants Pass, Oregon, to enforce laws that restrict sleeping on public property, even if it affects homeless individuals.
This decision will negatively impact homeless people, especially those with mental health conditions and disabilities. As Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent, the majority’s ruling focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: either stay awake all night or be arrested. Justice Sotomayor recognizes that in a society where those with mental health conditions are at greater risk of homelessness and where less than 5% of housing in the United States is accessible for moderate mobility disabilities, Grants Pass will harm people across disabilities, especially Black, Native American, and LGBTQIA2S+ individuals, survivors of domestic violence, and veterans.
In 2018, Debra Blake, who has since passed away, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging an ordinance that limited the outdoor sleeping areas available to homeless people. The ordinance punished homeless people by not allowing individuals to sleep in public streets, alleyways or sidewalks. Although there was an allowance for homeless people to sleep in public parks, the ordinance prohibited individuals from using camping materials, bedding, or parked overnight vehicles for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Repeat violators would be banned from public parks for 30 days or face criminal trespass charges. The district court issued a permanent injunction which provided the relief that the anti-camping restrictions could only be enforced during the day and with a 24-hour warning from law enforcement.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cited Martin v. City of Boise, in which the court held that the Eighth Amendment does not allow criminal punishment for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless people who cannot find shelter. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Grants Pass ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment because homeless people have a right to protect themselves from the weather. In addition, the Court limited the permanent injunction to those who are involuntarily homeless and need to protect themselves from the weather when there is no shelter available. This creates a legal distinction between those who are homeless “involuntarily,” and receive the Eighth Amendment protections described above, and those who are homeless “voluntarily” and do not.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on January 12, 2024. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the enforcement of laws that regulate camping on public property counts as “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The named class representative, Gloria Johnson, is arguing that the city’s ordinances amount to criminalizing homelessness, therefore violating the Eighth Amendment. However, Grants Pass is arguing that its anti-camping ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2024.
The Supreme Court Opinion in this case is expected by mid-July at the latest. The Supreme Court will begin issuing its opinions (on all arguments heard this term) in June. The majority of opinions are completed by the end of that month, but occasionally opinions may be issued in July.
Why Does This Matter?
People with disabilities are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness. Nearly 24% of individuals experiencing homelessness have a disability including physical, intellectual, and developmental disabilities, as well as a mental health and/or substance abuse disorder. Many people with disabilities are on supplemental security income (SSI), which limits the amount of income and assets those receiving SSI can have. In addition, many shelters are inaccessible to people with disabilities because of the inability to provide reasonable accommodations. With these barriers, plus the discrimination people with disabilities experience in housing, health care, employment, and wages, people with disabilities are at a higher risk of becoming homeless.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Grants Pass, state and local governments will be able to punish people who are forced to sleep outside, even when they have no other place to go. The effects will radiate beyond Oregon– across the country. This will harm unhoused people and can worsen already existing inequalities.
Kendall Murphy is a legal advocate at Project HEAL. Kendall received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from The Catholic University of America. She went on to receive her Juris Doctor from Elon University School of Law. While in law school, Kendall served as a Project HEAL trainee and as an intern for Disability Rights Maryland. She also worked as a research assistant at Elon Law researching law regarding students with specific learning disabilities and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Prior to law school, Kendall worked as a behavioral therapist for students with autism in the Washington, D.C. school system.
