Grants Pass v. Johnson – In a 6-3 decision on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does not prohibit the enforcement of generally applicable local ordinances regulating camping on public property. This decision overturned a previous Ninth Circuit decision, Martin v. Boise, which addressed the same issue. Although the facts of this case involve specific ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, the legal issue is centered around local authority.
The City of Grants Pass passed public-camping laws restricting encampments on public property. In the Martin decision, the Ninth Circuit previously held that enforcement of these types of ordinances when the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds violated the Eight Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. In Grants Pass, a putative class action was filed on behalf of homeless individuals living in Grants Pass, arguing that the City’s ordinances restricting public camping violated the Eighth Amendment. The majority opinion reasoned that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does not regulate whether municipalities can impose criminal penalties, it only regulates the type of penalties may be imposed. The Court further explained that the fines and criminal penalties associated with the Grants Pass ordinances did not qualify as “cruel and unusual” and that the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize federal judges…to dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” The majority opinion also emphasized that other legal protections under the Constitution may apply when local governments seek to enforce their laws against homeless individuals, but the only question at issue in this case is whether the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prohibits the enforcement of public-camping laws.
Comments