Supreme Court to Hear Oregon Case Regarding Homeless Rights to Rest

Authors: Kat Mahoney and Bea Baker

On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to re-examine a court case that reaffirmed the rights of people experiencing homelessness in Oregon. The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, Gloria, et. al will weigh in on the constitutionality of both the Blake v. City of Grants Pass and Martin v. Boise decisions.

If the case upholds the previous lower court’s decision, it will establish basic legal protection against law enforcement which may allow for people to have one less stressor as they try to access services. If it goes the other way, it will empower and embolden governments to forcibly remove and punish people and will not take a step towards solving homelessness. The stakes are high.  

The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution protects from “cruel and unusual punishment.” The 8th Amendment is the basis of the most casrs we have looked at so far. Read more about camping rights in Portland here.

A Little Background on the Cases

In Blake v. Grants Pass, the court decided the city may implement time and place restrictions for when unhoused individuals may use their belongings on public property and when they must have their belongings packed up. The city can also implement anti-camping ordinances such as banning camps being set up in a park, but the ordinances Grants Pass had in effect violated Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The City filed a petition for en banc review with the Ninth Circuit on November 14, 2022. This case is ongoing. Blake passed away, and two different plaintiffs, Gloria Johnson and John Logan were named in the case, Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Grants Pass v. Johnson, formerly named Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, was decided after Martin v. Boise, and clarified some points of Martin v. Boise. The 9th Circuit reaffirmed that Grants Pass could not enforce its anti-camping laws against a homeless person “for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the city for them to go.” The ruling also established that individuals could not be forced to seek shelter at a location that violated their religious beliefs. Essentially, the 9th Circuit reinforced their previous stance in Martin v. Boise: someone cannot be punished for sleeping outside if they lack adequate shelter in the city.   

Ed Johnson, lead counsel for the respondents, told us, “The fact is the Ninth Circuit’s narrow ruling is consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent. The U.S. Constitution does not allow cities to punish people for having an involuntary status, including the status of being involuntarily homeless. We look forward to presenting our case to the Court.”

Cities cannot ban bedding to side-step the “right to sleep” when there is no shelter. Read more about camping rights in Portland here.

The core issue at the heart of Martin v. Boise and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is whether it is unconstitutional for cities to punish people who sleep on the streets when they have nowhere else to go for shelter. In both cases, the individuals did not have shelter “reasonably available” to them, but they were still punished for having to sleep on public property. The shelter closed, the individuals had nowhere to sleep, and they were then given citations for sleeping on public property by officers. 

If Grants Pass were to be overturned, it would gut protections for “involuntarily homeless” individuals - homeless people with no other suitable option but to sleep on public property or in their cars. Overturning would narrow the types of legal challenges allowed for anti-camping laws and make it harder for involuntarily homeless people sleeping with bedding on the street to be protected from fines and penalties. 

But if the court overturns the entire underlying argument Grants Pass v. Johnson AND Martin v. Boise are based on, there would be almost no protections against anti-camping laws that affect involuntarily homeless people. 

Sleeping, resting, and lying on public property would be criminalized. If the Supreme Court overturns these cases, when shelter beds are full or a shelter closes, any “involuntarily homeless” person with no other options could be prosecuted, fined, and/or arrested for sleeping on public property or in their car. 

Unpaid citations can impact a person’s credit history and directly affect their chances of getting housing.  Civil penalties impact a person’s chances of accessing housing services. 

One point we want to emphasize is the Ninth Circuit opinion for Grants Pass does not say what some politicians and media are reporting. The ruling explicitly allows cities to regulate encampments and prohibit tents. However, cities cannot punish people for putting a blanket over themselves in order to stay warm and dry and trying to stay alive while living outside.

The 9th Circuit Court covers Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Hawaii. Read more about camping rights in Portland here.

The truth is that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is incredibly narrow and politicians and others are falsely claiming the decision is much broader out of political expediency – it’s an excuse for their own inaction and failed policies. This case is expected to host oral arguments in late April, with a decision being passed down by summer 2024. 

Criminalization Doesn’t Work. 

We all want to end homelessness, but criminalizing homeless people will make matters worse. It makes it less likely that people will stay stable and connected with the services they need to get housed. Criminalization wastes money, makes matters worse, and moves us all away from our collective goal of ending homelessness.