The Supreme Court ruled in a bizarre case in recent history, 6-3, in favor of local governments in the City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities can prohibit homeless people from “camping out” in public places. The question was, “Does enforcement of laws generally applicable regulating camping on property owned by the public constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”
Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, summarized the court’s ruling in the live chat on the website. “The court held that the enforcement and general laws regulating camping is public property does not constitute a ‘cruel or unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”
The city of Grants Pass fined homeless people for sleeping in cardboard boxes, or in areas where blankets and pillows were used to cover them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Boise that a law similar to this one violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unjust punishment. The case against Boise, Idaho was based on the 1962 Robinson v. California case which used Eighth Amendment arguments to prohibit states and localities from making drug addiction an offense without the addict committing any other crimes.
Howe reported on SCOTUSblog, “The city argued the ordinances merely prohibit camping on public land by anyone. The challengers contended the laws make it a criminal offense to be homeless in a city and thus violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and uncommon punishment.”
During oral arguments, the issue of “camping restrictions” which are prevalent in many cities around the country divided justices. The liberal justices showed more sympathy for the homeless, while the conservatives asked detailed questions.
Howe wrote
Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized the fact that the Robinson law prohibited both drug use and addiction to drugs. Thomas asked if the city ordinances made it illegal to be homeless.
The attorney for the city, [Theane] Evangelis, responded that they do not.
Other justices, however, suggested that it is more difficult to distinguish between status and conduct which can be punished under Robinson. Chief Justice John Roberts for example seemed to suggest homelessness was not a legal status because someone can become homeless instantly.
Justice Samuel Alito stated that “status and conduct are different things, but there are certain instances of conduct which are closely related to the status, or if the definition of homelessness is simply not having a place to sleep on a specific night, then they are both the same.”
Amy Coney Barrett, a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asked [Kelsi] Brown Corkran (the attorney who represents the homeless individuals) if it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment if the city enforced its laws when other situations involved basic human needs such as eating and going to the bathroom. Can the city fine homeless people for stealing food, urinating in public, or defecating?
Justice Elena Kagan concluded the case was a “super hard policy problem for every municipality.”
In his opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that Robinson “expressly acknowledged the ‘broad powers’ States have over the substance of their criminal laws.” He also said that the camping ordinances in question “are not similar to the law at stake in Robinson.”
Thomas cited Robinson in a concurring view, saying that the court had erred by deciding this case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in her dissent that camping laws punish homeless people and violate the Eighth Amendment.
We are aware that the SCOTUS’s decisions this week have a ripple effect throughout the country. We are committed to providing the most comprehensive coverage possible.
