Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-28-2024
Case Style:
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, et al.
Case Number: 23-175
Judge:
Court:
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Grants Pass, Oregon civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued claiming that Defendant's city ordinances violated their constitutional rights by prohibiting camping on public property.
Grants Pass, Oregon, is home to roughly 38,000 people, about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day. Like many local governments across the Nation, Grants Pass has public-camping laws that restrict encampments on public property. The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. See §§5.61.030, 6.46.090(A)–(B). Initial violations can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment. In a prior decision, Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause bars cities from enforcing public-camping ordinances like these against homeless individuals whenever the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds. 920 F. 3d 584, 617. After Martin, suits against Western cities like Grants Pass proliferated. Plaintiffs (respondents here) filed a putative class action on behalf of homeless people living in Grants Pass, claiming that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court certified the class and entered a Martin injunction prohibiting Grants Pass from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals in the city. App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a–183a. Applying Martin’s reasoning, the district court found everyone without shelter in Grants Pass was “involuntarily homeless” because the city’s total homeless population outnumbered its “practically available” shelter beds. App.drugs like heroin and fentanyl, which have claimed the lives of so many Americans in recent years. Brief for Office of the San Diego County District Attorney as Amicus Curiae 17–19. Without running water or proper sanitation facilities, too, diseases can sometimes spread in encampments and beyond them. Various States say that they have seen typhus, shigella, trench fever, and other diseases reemerge on their city streets. California Governor Brief 12; Brief for Idaho et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (States Brief ).
Nor do problems like these affect everyone equally. Often, encampments are found in a city’s “poorest and mostvulnerable neighborhoods.” Brief for City and County of San Francisco et al. as Amici Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 5 (SanFrancisco Cert. Brief ); see also 2020 HUD Report 9. With encampments dotting neighborhood sidewalks, adults and children in these communities are sometimes forced to navigate around used needles, human waste, and other hazards to make their way to school, the grocery store, or work. San Francisco Cert. Brief 5; States Brief 8; California Governor Brief 11–12. Those with physical disabilities report this can pose a special challenge for them, as they may lack the mobility to maneuver safely around the encampments.San Francisco Cert. Brief 5; see also Brief for Tiana Tozer et al. as Amici Curiae 1–6 (Tozer Brief ).
Communities of all sizes are grappling with how best toaddress challenges like these. As they have throughout the Nation’s history, charitable organizations “serve as the backbone of the emergency shelter system in this country,” accounting for roughly 40 percent of the country’s shelter beds for single adults on a given night. See National Alliance To End Homelessness, Faith-Based Organizations: Fundamental Partners in Ending Homelessness 1 (2017).Many private organizations, city officials, and States have worked, as well, to increase the availability of affordablehousing in order to provide more permanent shelter for those in need. See Brief for Local Government Legal Center
to Pet. for Cert. 179a, 216a. The beds at Grants Pass’s charity-runshelter did not qualify as “available” in part because that shelter has rules requiring residents to abstain from smoking and to attend religious services. App. to Pet. for Cert. 179a–180a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Martin injunction in relevant part. 72 F. 4th 868, 874–896. Grants Pass filed a petition for certiorari. Many States, cities, and counties from across the Ninth Circuit urged the Court to grant review to assess Martin.
Held: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Pp. 15–35.
(a)
The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment” a government may “impos[e] forthe violation of criminal statutes.” Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, 531– 532 (plurality opinion). It was adopted to ensure that the new Nationwould never resort to certain “formerly tolerated” punishments considered “cruel” because they were calculated to “ ‘superad[d]’ ” “ ‘terror, pain, or disgrace,’ ” and considered “unusual” because, by the time ofthe Amendment’s adoption, they had “long fallen out of use.” Bucklew
v.
Precythe, 587 U. S 119, 130. All that would seem to make the EighthAmendment a poor foundation on which to rest the kind of decree the plaintiffs seek in this case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place. Powell, 392 U. S., at 531–532.
The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposeshere qualify as cruel and unusual. The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders, and a maximumsentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order. See Ore. Rev. Stat. §§164.245, 161.615(3). Such punishments do not qualify as cruel because they are not designed to “superad[d]” “terror, pain, or disgrace.” Bucklew, 587 U. S., at 130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor are they unusual, because similarly limited fines and jail terms have been and remain among “the usual mode[s]” for punishing criminal offenses throughout the country. Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475, 480. Indeed, cities and States across the countryhave long employed similar punishments for similar offenses. Pp. 15–17.
(b)
Plaintiffs do not meaningfully dispute that, on its face, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not speak to questions like
Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3
Opinion of the Court
Office of Policy Development & Research, Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Cost 1 (2020) (2020 HUD Report). As the number of homeless individuals has grown, the number of homeless encampments across the country has increased as well, “innumbers not seen in almost a century.” Ibid. The unsheltered may coalesce in these encampments for a range of reasons. Some value the “freedom” encampment living provides compared with submitting to the rules shelters impose. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, R. Cohen, W. Yetvin, & J. Khadduri, Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses 5 (2019). Others report that encampments offer a “sense ofcommunity.” Id., at 7. And still others may seek them outfor “dependable access to illegal drugs.” Ibid. In brief, the reasons why someone will go without shelter on a given night vary widely by the person and by the day. See ibid.
As the number and size of these encampments havegrown, so have the challenges they can pose for the homeless and others. We are told, for example, that the “exponential increase in . . . encampments in recent years has resulted in an increase in crimes both against the homelessand by the homeless.” Brief for California State Sheriffs’ Associations et al. as Amici Curiae 21 (California SheriffsBrief ). California’s Governor reports that encampment inhabitants face heightened risks of “sexual assault” and “subjugation to sex work.” Brief for California Governor G. Newsom as Amicus Curiae 11 (California Governor Brief ).And by one estimate, more than 40 percent of the shootings in Seattle in early 2022 were linked to homeless encampments. Brief for Washington State Association of Sheriffsand Police Chiefs as Amicus Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 10 (Washington Sheriffs Brief ).
Other challenges have arisen as well. Some city officialsindicate that encampments facilitate the distribution of
drugs like heroin and fentanyl, which have claimed the lives of so many Americans in recent years. Brief for Office of the San Diego County District Attorney as Amicus Curiae 17–19. Without running water or proper sanitation facilities, too, diseases can sometimes spread in encampments and beyond them. Various States say that they have seen typhus, shigella, trench fever, and other diseases reemerge on their city streets. California Governor Brief 12; Brief for Idaho et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (States Brief ).
Nor do problems like these affect everyone equally. Often, encampments are found in a city’s “poorest and mostvulnerable neighborhoods.” Brief for City and County of San Francisco et al. as Amici Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 5 (SanFrancisco Cert. Brief ); see also 2020 HUD Report 9. With encampments dotting neighborhood sidewalks, adults and children in these communities are sometimes forced to navigate around used needles, human waste, and other hazards to make their way to school, the grocery store, or work. San Francisco Cert. Brief 5; States Brief 8; California Governor Brief 11–12. Those with physical disabilities report this can pose a special challenge for them, as they may lack the mobility to maneuver safely around the encampments.San Francisco Cert. Brief 5; see also Brief for Tiana Tozer et al. as Amici Curiae 1–6 (Tozer Brief ).
Communities of all sizes are grappling with how best toaddress challenges like these. As they have throughout the Nation’s history, charitable organizations “serve as the backbone of the emergency shelter system in this country,” accounting for roughly 40 percent of the country’s shelter beds for single adults on a given night. See National Alliance To End Homelessness, Faith-Based Organizations: Fundamental Partners in Ending Homelessness 1 (2017).Many private organizations, city officials, and States have worked, as well, to increase the availability of affordablehousing in order to provide more permanent shelter for those in need. See Brief for Local Government Legal Center et al. as Amici Curiae 4, 32 (Cities Brief ). But many, too, have come to the conclusion that, as they put it, “[j]ustbuilding more shelter beds and public housing options is almost certainly not the answer by itself.” Id., at 11.
As many cities see it, even as they have expanded shelter capacity and other public services, their unsheltered populations have continued to grow. Id., at 9–11. The city ofSeattle, for example, reports that roughly 60 percent of its offers of shelter have been rejected in a recent year. See id., at 28, and n. 26. Officials in Portland, Oregon, indicatethat, between April 2022 and January 2024, over 70 percent of their approximately 3,500 offers of shelter beds to homeless individuals were declined. Brief for League of Oregon Cities et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (Oregon Cities Brief ). Other cities tell us that “the vast majority of their homeless populations are not actively seeking shelter and refuse all services.” Brief for Thirteen California Cities as Amici Curiae
3. Surveys cited by the Department of Justice suggest thatonly “25–41 percent” of “homeless encampment residents”“willingly” accept offers of shelter beds. See Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, S.Chamard, Homeless Encampments 36 (2010).
The reasons why the unsheltered sometimes reject offersof assistance may themselves be many and complex. Some may reject shelter because accepting it would take them further from family and local ties. See Brief for 57 Social Scientists as Amici Curiae 20. Some may decline offers of assistance because of concerns for their safety or the rulessome shelters impose regarding curfews, drug use, or religious practices. Id., at 22; see Cities Brief 29. Other factors may also be at play. But whatever the causes, local governments say, this dynamic significantly complicates their efforts to address the challenges of homelessness. See id., at 11.
Rather than focus on a single policy to meet the challenges associated with homelessness, many States and cities have pursued a range of policies and programs. See 2020 HUD Report 14–20. Beyond expanding shelter and affordable housing opportunities, some have reinvested inmental-health and substance-abuse treatment programs.See Brief for California State Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae 20, 25; see also 2020 HUD Report 23. Some have trained their employees in outreach tactics designed to improve relations between governments and the homeless they serve. Ibid. And still others have chosen to pairthese efforts with the enforcement of laws that restrict camping in public places, like parks, streets, and sidewalks.Cities Brief 11.
Laws like those are commonplace. By one count, “a majority of cities have laws restricting camping in public spaces,” and nearly forty percent “have one or more lawsprohibiting camping citywide.” See Brief for Western Regional Advocacy Project as Amicus Curiae 7, n. 15 (emphasis deleted). Some have argued that the enforcement of these laws can create a “revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back.” U. S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Searching Out Solutions 6 (2012). But many cities take a different view. According to the National League of Cities (a group that represents more than 19,000American cities and towns), the National Association of Counties (which represents the Nation’s 3,069 counties)and others across the American West, these public-camping regulations are not usually deployed as a front-line response “to criminalize homelessness.” Cities Brief 11. Instead, they are used to provide city employees with the legal authority to address “encampments that pose significant health and safety risks” and to encourage their inhabitantsto accept other alternatives like shelters, drug treatment programs, and mental-health facilities. Ibid.
Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 7
Opinion of the Court
Cities are not alone in pursuing this approach. The federal government also restricts “the storage of . . . sleeping bags,” as well as other “sleeping activities,” on park lands.36 CFR §§7.96(i), (j)(1) (2023). And it, too, has exercised that authority to clear certain “dangerous” encampments. National Park Service, Record of Determination for Clearing the Unsheltered Encampment at McPherson Squareand Temporary Park Closure for Rehabilitation (Feb. 13, 2023).
Different governments may use these laws in differentways and to varying degrees. See Cities Brief 11. But manybroadly agree that “policymakers need access to the full panoply of tools in the policy toolbox” to “tackle the complicated issues of housing and homelessness.” California Governor Brief 16; accord, Cities Brief 11; Oregon Cities Brief 17.
B Five years ago, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit took one of those tools off the table. In Martin v. Boise, 920 F. 3d 584 (2019), that court considered a public-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho, that made it a misdemeanor to use “streets, sidewalks, parks, or public places”for “camping.” Id., at 603 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Ninth Circuit, the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause barred Boise from enforcing its public-camping ordinance against homeless individuals who lacked “access to alternative shelter.” Id., at 615. That “access” was lacking, the courtsaid, whenever “‘there is a greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters.’” Id., at 617 (alterations omitted). According to the Ninth Circuit, nearly three quarters of Boise’s shelter beds were not “practically available” because the city’s charitable shelters had a “religious atmosphere.” Id., at 609–610, 618. Boise was thus enjoined from enforcing 8 CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON
Opinion of the Court
its camping laws against the plaintiffs. Ibid.
No other circuit has followed Martin’s lead with respectto public-camping laws. Nor did the decision go unremarked within the Ninth Circuit. When the full court denied rehearing en banc, several judges wrote separately to note their dissent. In one statement, Judge Bennett argued that Martin was inconsistent with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. That provision, Judge Bennett contended, prohibits certain methods of punishment a government may impose after a criminal conviction, but it does not “impose [any] substantive limits on what conduct a state may criminalize.” 920 F. 3d, at 599–602. In another statement, Judge Smith lamented that Martin had “shackle[d] the hands of public officials trying to redress the serious societal concern of homelessness.” Id., at 590. He predicted the decision would “wrea[k] havoc on local governments,residents, and businesses” across the American West. Ibid.
After Martin, similar suits proliferated against Western cities within the Ninth Circuit. As Judge Smith put it, “[i]f one picks up a map of the western United States and points to a city that appears on it, there is a good chance that cityhas already faced” a judicial injunction based on Martin or the threat of one “in the few short years since [the NinthCircuit] initiated its Martin experiment.” 72 F. 4th, at 940; see, e.g., Boyd v. San Rafael, 2023 WL 7283885, *1–*2 (ND Cal., Nov. 2, 2023); Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, 646
F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1132 (Ariz. 2022); Warren v. Chico, 2021 WL 2894648, *3 (ED Cal., July 8, 2021).
Consider San Francisco, where each night thousandssleep “in tents and other makeshift structures.” Brief for City and County of San Francisco et al. as Amici Curiae 8 (San Francisco Brief ). Applying Martin, a district court entered an injunction barring the city from enforcing “laws and ordinances to prohibit involuntarily homeless individuals from sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property.” Coalition on Homelessness v. San Francisco, 647 F. Supp. 3d
806, 841 (ND Cal. 2022). That “misapplication of thisCourt’s Eighth Amendment precedents,” the Mayor tells us, has “severely constrained San Francisco’s ability to address the homelessness crisis.” San Francisco Brief 7. The city“uses enforcement of its laws prohibiting camping” not tocriminalize homelessness, but “as one important toolamong others to encourage individuals experiencing homelessness to accept services and to help ensure safe and accessible sidewalks and public spaces.” Id., at 7–8. Judicial intervention restricting the use of that tool, the Mayor continues, “has led to painful results on the streets and in neighborhoods.” Id., at 8. “San Francisco has seen over half of its offers of shelter and services rejected by unhoused individuals, who often cite” the Martin order against the city“as their justification to permanently occupy and block public sidewalks.” Id., at 8–9.
An exceptionally large number of cities and States havefiled briefs in this Court reporting experiences like San Francisco’s. In the judgment of many of them, the NinthCircuit has inappropriately “limit[ed] the tools available to local governments for tackling [what is a] complex and difficult human issue.” Oregon Cities Brief 2. The threat of Martin injunctions, they say, has “paralyze[d]” even commonsense and good-faith efforts at addressing homelessness. Brief for City of Phoenix et al. as Amici Curiae 36 (Phoenix Brief ). The Ninth Circuit’s intervention, they insist, has prevented local governments from pursuing “effective solutions to this humanitarian crisis while simultaneously protecting the remaining community’s right to safelyenjoy public spaces.” Brief for International MunicipalLawyers Association et al. as Amici Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 27 (Cities Cert. Brief ); States Brief 11 (“State and local governments in the Ninth Circuit have attempted a variety of solutions to address the problems that public encampmentsinflict on their communities,” only to have those “efforts . . . shut down by federal courts”).
10 CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON
Opinion of the Court
Many cities further report that, rather than help alleviate the homelessness crisis, Martin injunctions have inadvertently contributed to it. The numbers of “[u]nsheltered homelessness,” they represent, have “increased dramatically in the Ninth Circuit since Martin.” Brief for League of Oregon Cities et al. as Amici Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 7 (boldface and capitalization deleted). And, they say, Martin injunctions have contributed to this trend by “weaken[ing]” the ability of public officials “to persuade persons experiencing homelessness to accept shelter beds and [other] services.” Brief for Ten California Cities as Amici Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 2. In Portland, for example, residents reportsome unsheltered persons “often return within days” of anencampment’s clearing, on the understanding that “Martin . . . and its progeny prohibit the [c]ity from implementing more efficacious strategies.” Tozer Brief 5; WashingtonSheriffs Brief 14 (Martin divests officers of the “ability to compel [unsheltered] persons to leave encampments and obtain necessary services”). In short, they say, Martin “make[s] solving this crisis harder.” Cities Cert. Brief 3.
All acknowledge “[h]omelessness is a complex and serious social issue that cries out for effective . . . responses.” Ibid. But many States and cities believe “it is crucial” for local governments to “have the latitude” to experiment and findeffective responses. Id., at 27; States Brief 13–17. “Injunctions and the threat of federal litigation,” they insist, “impede this democratic process,” undermine local governments, and do not well serve the homeless or others who live in the Ninth Circuit. Cities Cert. Brief 27–28.
C The case before us arises from a Martin injunction issued against the city of Grants Pass. Located on the banks of the Rogue River in southwestern Oregon, the city is home toroughly 38,000 people. Among them are an estimated 600 individuals who experience homelessness on a given day.
11 Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024)
Opinion of the Court
72 F. 4th, at 874; App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a–168a; 212a–213a.
Like many American cities, Grants Pass has laws restricting camping in public spaces. Three are relevant here. The first prohibits sleeping “on public sidewalks, streets, or alleyways.” Grants Pass Municipal Code §5.61.020(A) (2023); App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a. The second prohibits“[c]amping” on public property. §5.61.030; App. to Pet. forCert. 222a (boldface deleted). Camping is defined as “set[ting] up . . . or remain[ing] in or at a campsite,” and a “[c]ampsite” is defined as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag[s], or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed . . . for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” §§5.61.010(A)–(B); App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a. The third prohibits “[c]amping” and “[o]vernight parking” in the city’s parks. §§6.46.090(A)–(B); 72
F. 4th, at 876. Penalties for violating these ordinances escalate stepwise. An initial violation may trigger a fine. §§1.36.010(I)–(J). Those who receive multiple citations maybe subject to an order barring them from city parks for 30 days. §6.46.350; App. to Pet. for Cert. 174a. And, in turn, violations of those orders can constitute criminal trespass,punishable by a maximum of 30 days in prison and a $1,250 fine. Ore. Rev. Stat. §§164.245, 161.615(3), 161.635(1)(c) (2023).
Neither of the named plaintiffs before us has been subjected to an order barring them from city property or to criminal trespass charges. Perhaps that is because the cityhas traditionally taken a light-touch approach to enforcement. The city’s officers are directed “to provide law enforcement services to all members of the community while protecting the rights, dignity[,] and private property of thehomeless.” App. 152, Grants Pass Dept. of Public SafetyPolicy Manual ¶428.1.1 (Dec. 17, 2018). Officers are instructed that “[h]omelessness is not a crime.” Ibid. And they are “encouraged” to render “aid” and “support” to the homeless whenever possible. Id., at 153, ¶428.3.1
Still, shortly after the panel decision in Martin, two homeless individuals, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, filed suit challenging the city’s public-camping laws. App. 37, Third Amended Complaint ¶¶6–7. They claimed, among other things, that the city’s ordinances violated the EighthAmendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Id., at 51, ¶66. And they sought to pursue their claim on behalf of a class encompassing “all involuntarily homelesspeople living in Grants Pass.” Id., at 48, ¶52.2
The district court certified the class action and enjoined the city from enforcing its public-camping laws against thehomeless. While Ms. Johnson and Mr. Logan generally sleep in their vehicles, the court held, they could adequately represent the class, for sleeping in a vehicle can sometimes count as unlawful “‘camping’” under the relevant ordinances. App. to Pet. for Cert. 219a (quoting Grants PassMunicipal Code §5.61.010). And, the court found, everyone
without shelter in Grants Pass was “involuntarily homeless” because the city’s total homeless population outnumbered its “‘practically available’” shelter beds. App. to Pet.for Cert. 179a, 216a. In fact, the court ruled, none of the beds at Grants Pass’s charity-run shelter qualified as “available.” They did not, the court said, both because thatshelter offers something closer to transitional housing than “temporary emergency shelter,” and because the shelterhas rules requiring residents to abstain from smoking andattend religious services. Id., at 179a–180a. The EighthAmendment, the district court thus concluded, prohibited Grants Pass from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals in the city. Id., at 182a–183a.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part. 72 F. 4th, at 874–896. The majority agreed with the district court that all unsheltered individuals in Grants Pass qualify as “involuntarily homeless” because the city’s homeless population exceeds “available” shelter beds. Id., at 894. And the majority further agreed that, under Martin, the homeless there cannot be punished for camping with “rudimentary forms of protection from the elements.” 72 F. 4th, at 896. In dissent, Judge Collins questioned Martin’s consistency with the Eighth Amendment and lamented its “dire practical consequences” for the city andothers like it. 72 F. 4th, at 914 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Outcome: Reversed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: