GRANTS PASS, Oregon — The Supreme Court has decided to take up a significant case concerning the constitutionality of municipal ordinances that prohibit homeless individuals from camping on public property. The court will review a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, which found that such ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, are in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The decision by the appeals court applied to all nine states within its jurisdiction, including California, where there are sizable homeless populations. Local officials in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix have urged the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court’s ruling.
The case revolves around a 2-1 ruling by the appeals court that Grants Pass cannot enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who sleep outside with minimal protection or sleep in their cars, when there are no alternative shelter options available. The court stated that the ruling only applies to situations where homeless individuals are acting to protect themselves from the elements.
Notably, the appeals court’s ruling faced criticism even within the court itself, with a slim majority voting against reconsidering it. Dissenting Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain described the ruling as a “dubious holding” and expressed concerns about its impact on local communities’ ability to address homelessness.
Grants Pass, represented by its lawyers, defended the city’s ordinances, arguing that civil fines for violating restrictions on public camping do not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. Theanes Evangelis, one of the city’s attorneys, noted that the appeals court ruling has contributed to the growing problem of encampments in cities across the western United States.
The ordinances in question in Grants Pass prohibit sleeping or camping on publicly owned property, including sidewalks, streets, bridges, and city parks. Violators can face fines of several hundred dollars and exclusion orders that ban them from public property. The case arose after a group of homeless individuals challenged the application of these ordinances, claiming that they essentially punish people for merely existing.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the lower court ruling does not prevent cities from prohibiting camping but rather focuses on whether people can be penalized for it. They accused certain politicians and others of falsely blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis to distract the public from the failure of their policies.
This marks the second time the Supreme Court has taken up a case regarding anti-camping ordinances. In 2019, before the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court declined to hear a similar case from Boise, Idaho. However, the 9th Circuit’s 2018 ruling that prosecuting homeless individuals for camping on public property would violate the Eighth Amendment prompted the city of Boise to seek Supreme Court intervention.
In this new case, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of municipal ordinances that restrict homeless individuals’ ability to camp on public property. The court’s decision will have significant implications for how cities across the country can address the complex issue of homelessness.