In the final days of its term, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that jurisdictions across the country have been watching – Johnson v. Grants Pass, a case about regulating camping in public. The sole question before the Court was, “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?” In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that it did not.
The Grants Pass case involved plaintiffs who were homeless in Grants Pass, Oregon, and arose out of a 2018 ruling in the Ninth Circuit that set limits for how a city could address the expanding social crisis of encampments across public property – Martin v. Boise. It was that decision that connected enforcement of sit-lie ordinances as violating the Eighth Amendment when the individual had no alternative shelter option.
In its decision on June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both rulings. The Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s foundational reasoning that enforcing ‘no camping’ ordinances on public property is akin to circumstances in an addiction case in California from the 1960s. In Robinson v. California (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California statute criminalizing narcotic addiction because it punished a status (one who is addicted to narcotics) rather than an act. In Grants Pass, the Court stated, “Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.”
Although the Court struck down the two Ninth Circuit cases that restricted how cities regulate public camping, much has changed since Martin was decided in 2018. Cities have implemented best practices and models across the state, including outreach co-response, setting up a shelter continuum (mitigated camps, safe parking, transitional housing, and stable housing), prioritizing non-congregate shelters, and job training and individual case management models – some of which originated in response to the pandemic. The pandemic also ushered in significant federal dollars that many cities used to launch programs. As the Court emphasized throughout its opinion, these are complex issues that require tailored solutions at the local level. That requires a level of sustained funding that not all cities can maintain. Those that do, rely on partners—including state, county, and federal government.
This ruling does not change that cities are subject to state laws that have passed since Martin, all which place responsibilities on cities as they balance the needs of housed and unhoused members of their community, their beloved public parks and community gathering places, and their business community. City elected officials must still enact ordinances, policies, and plans that comply with the following:
- HB 1220 (2021) – Planning for shelter.
- Requires cities to identify sufficient capacity of land for emergency shelters and housing, based on projected need.
- Cities cannot prohibit transitional shelter or permanent supportive housing in zones where hotels or residences are allowed.
- Cities cannot prohibit indoor emergency shelter or housing in any zone that allows hotels unless the city allows shelters within a mile of transit in most zones.
- HB 1754 (2020) – Religious organization homeless hosting. Limits the ability of local governments to regulate encampments, shelters, and car camping on property owned or controlled by a religious organization.
- City of Seattle v. Long (2019) is a state Supreme Court case that limits how a city may enforce parking regulations when a vehicle is used as a residence.
The Grants Pass decision provides only finality of the one constitutional question posed in that case. It does not address the varied and complex events that have led to the homelessness and housing crises. There is no single solution to these problems, and all the solutions exceed what any one city can fund. Cities will continue to look to the state to partner as we address the significant gap in the continuum of housing needed for those most vulnerable in our community – a need that can only be addressed by publicly funded housing at scale.
Resources
U.S. Supreme Court overturns ruling on camping regulations
June 28, 2024
In a 6 to 3 ruling released on June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Johnson v. Grants Pass, holding that the city’s enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Court concluded that these complex issues were better addressed by community-based policy decisions. In its ruling, the Court also overturned the Ninth Circuit 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise that prohibited local governments from enforcing criminal penalties for violations of camping ordinances when adequate shelter spaces were not available.
For more information, NLC and the Local Government Legal Center’s (LGLC) webinar Supreme Court Review for Local Governments on July 8 will include a presentation from the attorney who argued the case on behalf of Grants Pass.
In addition, read the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s summary of the decision.
To read the LGLC amicus brief, click here.
Ninth Circuit expands Martin in Grants Pass homelessness case
October 14, 2022
In a lengthy opinion issued on September 28, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court’s ruling that the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, could not, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, enforce its
anti-camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there was no lawful place in the city for them to go. The panel also held
that Martin applied to civil citations where the civil and criminal punishments were closely intertwined. Finally, the panel held that nothing in Martin precluded class actions.
As cities across the Ninth Circuit are aware, in 2018 the same court issued a decision in Martin v. Boise, holding that the Eighth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution “prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter … because sitting, lying, and sleeping are …
universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.” The court declared that a governmental entity cannot “criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless – namely sitting, lying, or sleeping.” However,
the court narrowed its holding in Martin, clarifying that cities are not obligated to provide shelter for every unhoused individual nor to allow anyone to sleep outside at any time and any place.
Because Johnson v. City of Grants Pass began as a class action lawsuit approximately six weeks after the Martin opinion, the
Martin case served as the backdrop for the Grants Pass litigation.
Grants Pass is a small city in Oregon with a population of about 38,000. The number of unhoused individuals outnumber the available shelter beds. The city passed several ordinances related to the regulation of sleeping outside, which, taken together,
made it nearly impossible to sleep outside with any form of bedding or shelter, or in a vehicle, on public land. A violation of these ordinances resulted in fines, which would escalate if left unpaid.
Three homeless individuals in Grants Pass filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those that are “involuntarily homeless” against the city, arguing its ordinances are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause and Excessive Fines Clause, among other arguments. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by certifying a class action in the case. Although Martin requires an individualized inquiry
into whether the person is involuntarily homeless before enforcement can occur, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that this does not bar the existence of a class because under the facts in this case those who have access to an alternative sleeping location
would not be a class member which was limited to only those that were “involuntarily homeless.”
The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the city’s ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and a “local government cannot avoid this ruling by issuing civil citations that, later, become criminal offenses.” The court
did not address ordinances that solely provided civil infractions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that “the anti-camping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause to the extent they prohibited
homeless persons from ‘taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available.’”
In conclusion, the court emphasized that its decision is a narrow one. Although reaching beyond Martin, the court expressly left the district court’s holding that the city may still ban the use of tents in public parks in place and noted
that the city’s prohibitions on erecting structures or using stoves or building fireplaces may or may not be permissible. Rather, the court instructed the district court on remand to “craft a narrower injunction recognizing” the
“limited right to protection against the elements.”
Unless the full Ninth Circuit court (en banc) or the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the decision, it is law and cities are encouraged to review their ordinances and enforcement practices with their legal counsel in light of this ruling.