An Analysis of The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson: A Destructive Non-Solution to the Homeless Epidemic

By Drea Cabral ’28

In June 2024, the Supreme Court came to a decision that could change how unhoused people are treated for years to come. The decision in The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson allows cities to criminalize those who sleep on public property, fining and arresting unhoused people for having nowhere else to turn, despite precedent that argues otherwise. This ruling will have grim consequences for the unhoused persons of the United States––effects that have already begun to materialize less than a year after the ruling. (1)

Two involuntarily unhoused residents of Grants Pass, Oregon brought the city to court on behalf of all similarly situated individuals on the basis that three of the city’s Municipal Codes violated the Eighth Amendment. The three Municipal Codes in question included a) the prohibition of  sleeping “on public sidewalks, streets, or alleyways,” b) the prohibition of  “camping” on public property, and c) the prohibition of  “camping” and “overnight parking” in city parks. An initial violation of the law results in a fine, but multiple violations can result in a maximum of thirty days in prison and a $1,250 fine. (2) The respondents asserted that “the Ordinances … do not criminalize any behavior or conduct related to encampments”, like drug use or theft, and instead “target [their] status as people without any other form of shelter.” (3)

A majority of the Supreme Court, voting along ideological lines, ruled that Grants Pass’ Municipal Codes were constitutional and did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause. However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented against the majority opinion, relying heavily on precedent established in Martin v. Boise—a case presented in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Martin established that anti-public camping ordinances were unconstitutional when the number of unhoused people is greater than the number of shelter beds available for use. (4) 

Although district courts originally ruled alongside Martin’s precedent, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled the opposite claiming that Martin is too vague in its definitions of “involuntarily homeless” and “available” shelter beds. The majority opinion points out that the Eighth Amendment does not provide the answers to these questions. Thus, the Supreme Court held it was not the Court’s place to make a ruling that would henceforth define these terms, and consequently deem the finding in Martin as irrelevant. The majority opinion also asserted that it is not in the Court’s discretion to tell a city what they can or cannot criminalize under the guise of the Eighth Amendment, which only pertains to punishment. (5)

In response to this claim, the dissenting justices pointed out that the majority finding failed to recognize the lack of resources available to the unhoused in Grants Pass. The city only had one homeless shelter which was run by a charity––not the government––that mandated occupants to attend religious services and abstain from smoking. These requirements to gain access inherently reduce the accessibility of such beds, as many unhoused persons would be unable to follow these regulations due to their own religious beliefs or personal habits. The dissent, in contrast to the majority, based their argument fundamentally on Martin and further argued that these beds cannot be considered “available” under the case’s precedent. (6) Nevertheless, even if these regulations did not exist, the shelter only contained approximately 130 beds for the over 600 homeless persons of Grant Pass. (7) In this instance, determining “availability” is not particularly difficult. Because shelter beds are not “available”, and there are no other options for the homeless people of Grants Pass, they are thus “involuntarily homeless.” The dissenting opinion also highlights the fact that the majority did not address the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Because the fines were “punitive” and served “no remedial purpose”, i.e. they intended to discourage the unhoused from living in Grants Pass, “the fines are ‘grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense’ and thus excessive.” (8) The dissenting judges thus claimed that Municipal Codes criminalized unhoused people for merely existing as people without anywhere else to sleep, violating the Eighth Amendment. The majority, however, goes so far as to argue that the Municipal Codes, by threatening imprisonment, would instead “encourage” unhoused people to find alternative housing. (9) 

The dissenting judges argue that the “status of being homeless (lacking available shelter) is defined by the very behavior singled out for punishment (sleeping outside).” The law is necessarily broken in order for a homeless person to live––one must sleep somewhere if no other options are available (as is the case in Grants Pass). (10) It is clear that the Municipal Codes of Grants Pass, by criminalizing one’s status as unhoused, violate the Cruel and Unusual Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The punishment must fit the crime, and it is unclear in this case what crime unhoused persons are committing other than existing as unhoused. 

Although it is not the role of the Court to provide a solution to end homelessness, it is their role to consider the constitutionality of a law presented to them. However, the majority, in this case, present a decision that gives cities “unfettered freedom” to criminalize the unhoused without legal ramifications. (11) In fact, less than a year after this decision, cities around the West Coast have already begun to take advantage. 

For example, in California, sweeps of homeless camps have become evermore common following the ruling. More than 180,000 Californians experience homelessness, the largest unhoused population in the country. The state continues to justify sweeping and destroying homeless encampments without providing any additional resources and uses this ruling as justification rather than solving the system problems contributing to homelessness. (12)

Particularly, the city of Fresno, California recently passed a law that bans camping in public, in any place or at any time. Violators face being charged with a misdemeanor, making it one of the strictest bans on public camping thus far—but nevertheless, legal under the Grants Pass decision (13)

Additionally, four cities in Nevada—Reno, Las Vegas, Sparks, and Henderson—and three counties—Clark, Washoe, and Nye—have passed new laws or expanded previous ones that restrict the ability of unhoused persons to sleep or camp in public. (14)

Though the intention of the parties on both sides of the issue may be to reduce the number of homeless persons in the U.S., the spread of such policies serves to further marginalize an already disadvantaged group. Arresting the homeless is just one “big game of whack-a-mole,” says one police officer quoted in Grants Pass. (15) Criminalizing unhoused people rather than creating resources that help them obtain housing, employment, or rehabilitation will only make it easier for them to become trapped within the criminal justice system. Those unable to pay fines or attend hearings will then have warrants out for their arrests, while those unable to pay bail will remain imprisoned. In Fresno, for example, individuals charged under the new public camping laws—many of whom already struggle to make court appearances due to difficulties accessing public transportation (or the lack thereof in certain areas)—have faced trial delays caused by a general lack of courtrooms, attorneys, clerks, and other necessary resources. (16) These arrests, missed court appearances, and fines can show up on criminal records and prevent many unhoused persons from getting jobs or housing—further perpetuating the problem.

Thus, criminalizing homelessness, rather than providing more resources, or creating new ones, that reduce the number of people lacking shelter, makes it even more difficult for unhoused people to remove themselves from their situation. The decision in this case, as the dissenting justices highlight, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment by imposing criminal penalties on individuals for the mere condition of involuntary homelessness. Consequently, the ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson serves not to enforce justice but to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and homelessness in America.

Endnotes

(1) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024).

(2) Id. at 11.

(3) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 15 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024) (dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor).

(4) Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019).

(5) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 16 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024).

(6) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 7 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024) (dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor).

(7) Id. at 9.

(8) Id. at 27.

(9) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 9 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024).

(10) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 13 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024) (dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor).

(11) Id. at 25.

(12) Lily Zhou, Governor Gavin Newsom Responds to California’s Homeless Encampment Crisis, CNN (July 28, 2024), https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/28/us/homeless-encampments-gavin-newsom-california/index.html

(13) Julia McEvoy, Fresno Rolls Out One of California’s Most Aggressive Camping Bans, KQED (July 25, 2024), https://www.kqed.org/news/12005898/fresno-rolls-out-one-of-californias-most-aggressive-camping-bans

(14) Jeniffer Solis, Anti-Homeless Camping Bans Marked by Procedural Pitfalls and Counterproductive Criminalizing, Nevada Current (Dec. 31, 2024), https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/12/31/anti-homeless-camping-bans-marked-by-procedural-pitfalls-and-counterproductive-criminalizing/#:~:text=Since%20the%202023%20session%2C%20at,folks%20from%20sleeping%20or%20camping.

(15) City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175, slip op. at 7 (U.S. Jun. 28, 2024) (dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor).

(16) Matt Levin, California’s Homeless-Camping Citation Trials Could Become Model for Other States, CalMatters (Feb. 18, 2025), https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/02/california-homeless-camping-citation-trials/