In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, in the Johnson v. Grants Pass case. The court’s conservative majority ruled that laws regulating camping on public property do not violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision marks a major development in the ongoing debate surrounding homelessness in the country.
The case centered around the city’s ability to enforce bans on homeless individuals sleeping outside when there is no available shelter. Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that struck down the city’s law. On April 22, the Supreme Court heard arguments, and it appeared that the justices were leaning towards a narrow ruling. Ultimately, the court sided with the city, reversing the Ninth Circuit opinion.
The ruling has sparked concerns among the homeless community in Grants Pass. Helen Cruz, a former homeless individual, expressed fear that the decision could lead to arrests and imprisonment. However, the city argued that the lower court ruling had limited their ability to address the growing crisis of homelessness effectively. The ruling is expected to empower local leaders in making decisions regarding encampments and resource allocation.
While the ruling does not mandate cities to take stronger action against homelessness, it could potentially change how homelessness is policed across the country. In Oregon, the immediate impact on the streets may not be noticeable, as the state already has a law allowing local governments to impose restrictions on sleeping in public places, as long as they are “objectively reasonable” and consider the availability of shelter.
The Supreme Court’s decision was reached with a 6-3 vote, with the conservative majority supporting Grants Pass. Three liberal judges dissented from the ruling. The majority of justices concluded that laws regulating camping on public property do not violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The case originated when Grants Pass began imposing fines of $295 on individuals sleeping outside due to the rising cost of housing and the emergence of tents in public parks. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously invalidated the law, deeming it a form of cruel and unusual punishment due to the lack of sufficient shelter beds.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications nationwide, potentially altering how cities address homelessness. It remains to be seen how this decision will shape future policies and approaches in tackling the complex issue of homelessness in the United States.
