Homelessness, Human Dignity, and the Constitution: A Policy Analysis of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024)

Summary

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) raises pressing questions about the scope of the Eighth Amendment, the balance of federalism, and the judiciary’s role in mediating between individual rights and local governance. On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision held that local governments may enforce ordinances against public camping and sleeping on public property, holding that such enforcement does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling effectively overturns key protections previously established in Martin v. City of Boise, a 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reflects a significant shift in constitutional interpretation (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024). The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling affirms the authority of municipalities to impose criminal penalties, including fines and jail time, for sleeping or camping in public spaces, regardless of whether adequate shelter alternatives are available. In emphasizing the role of state and local authorities, the decision highlights a preference for allowing communities to tailor responses to homelessness based on local needs and resources. While critics argue that such enforcement criminalizes poverty and fails to address the root causes of homelessness, supporters believe it restores municipal control and public order. 

Background

The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, where the city enacted ordinances prohibiting individuals from camping or sleeping in public spaces such as streets, parks, and sidewalks. These measures, aimed at curbing visible homelessness, were enforced through citations, fines, and, in some cases, jail time, even when those penalized had no access to shelter. The harshest consequences often fell on those with nowhere else to go. As enforcement escalated, unhoused residents began receiving repeated citations, many of which carried fines they could not afford to pay. Some ended up incarcerated for violating laws they had no way of avoiding. In response, two homeless residents, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in federal court. They argued that punishing people for sleeping outdoors when no shelter was available should be considered cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024). Their claim rested heavily on Martin v. City of Boise, a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that cities could not enforce anti-camping laws against the homeless when no alternatives exist because it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (Martin v. City of Boise, 2018).

In 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Grants Pass to cease enforcement of its ordinances against public camping and sleeping on public property. They concluded that the city was not punishing behavior but rather the inescapable reality of homelessness. This ruling created a legal standard that prompted concern among local governments seeking to manage encampments. The tension between civil liberties and municipal authority eventually led the Supreme Court to agree to review the case (Boesche, 2024). In a closely watched 2024 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower rulings, rejecting the idea that such enforcement violated the Eighth Amendment. In doing so, it restored cities’ ability to regulate public camping more freely, reshaping homelessness policy across the United States (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024).

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson marked a pivotal shift in how the U.S. Constitution is applied to issues of poverty and public space. The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, grants cities broad authority to penalize people for engaging in basic, life-sustaining activities such as sleeping in public spaces. Justice Gorsuch emphasized that fines and brief incarceration for violating anti-camping laws do not meet the constitutional threshold of being cruel and unusual. Since such penalties are common and non-torturous, the Court’s majority held that they fall within the bounds of lawful enforcement. In addition, the majority opinion argues that the regulation of public property is a matter best left to local discretion (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024, pp. 6–40).

The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson reflects a broader constitutional debate: should courts intervene to protect marginalized populations when local governments fail to act, or should they defer to local governance, even at the cost of individual rights? The Court chose to resolve this debate by framing homelessness as a complex social issue that must be addressed by local policymaking rather than federal constitutional concern. In doing so, the majority opinion framed its ruling as a deference to local autonomy and the principle of federalism. Moreover, the Court also implicitly rejected the precedent set by Martin v. City of Boise (2018), where the Ninth Circuit had ruled that criminalizing public sleeping when no shelter is available effectively punishes individuals for their status as homeless, which the court deemed involuntary and constitutionally protected from such punishment.

Stare decisis, which is latin for “to stand by things decided,” is foundational in American jurisprudence; it promotes legal consistency by ensuring courts follow prior rulings. The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) overturned Martin v. City Boise (2018), rejecting that constitutional interpretation. This decision marked a significant departure from stare decisis. The Court’s majority argued that the previous decision misapplied constitutional principles and that correcting that error was more important than preserving the precedent. By doing so, the Court demonstrated that stare decisis can be set aside when a prior ruling is seen as legally flawed. This shift altered how cities can manage public spaces and respond to homelessness (Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024). Where once local governments were limited by the Martin v. Boise (2018) precedent, they now have more ability to enforce anti-camping laws, even when shelter is unavailable. The ruling also signals that the current Supreme Court is more willing to revisit and overturn past decisions if they conflict with its interpretation of the Constitution.

In my view, the Supreme Court should have ruled differently. It should have recognized that punishing individuals for engaging in life-sustaining behavior in the absence of alternatives amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution is not merely a set of rules but a charter of values, and among those values are human dignity and fairness. I believe the ruling of the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson fails to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Constitution, particularly the Eighth Amendment, should not permit such an outcome. The Eighth Amendment, originally intended as a safeguard against barbaric or disproportionate penalties, states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (The National Constitution Center).

I align with Justice Sotomayor’s compelling dissent. She writes, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime” (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024, p. 45). People should not be given fines and jail time for sleeping in public spaces with basic items such as a blanket or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow because this is precisely the kind of disproportional and dehumanizing punishment the Eighth Amendment was designed to prevent. The dissent, led by Justice Sotomayor, emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution cannot be blind to social context and that legal interpretations must consider how laws function in practice and not only in theory (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024, p. 51). The ruling fails to grapple with the real-life conditions faced by unhoused individuals. When a person has no home, sleeping in public is not a choice but a necessity. For people with no access to shelter, the ruling punishes them for being homeless. Punishing people for their status should be cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. 

While reflecting on the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, I thought of the following questions: If homelessness is a condition shaped by national economic forces, housing markets, and federal policy failures, can purely local solutions, especially punitive ones, satisfactorily address it? Or does the federal government have not just the power, but the responsibility, to intervene? Importantly, the ruling reflects a troubling disregard for the humanity of unhoused individuals and the systemic failures that have placed them in such vulnerable positions. It aligns with the interests of those seeking to make homelessness invisible rather than those striving to end it. If homelessness is a product of structural conditions such as the lack of affordable housing, mental health crises, and economic inequality, then penalizing homeless individuals risks punishing individuals for circumstances beyond their control. Cities across the country may now feel compelled to enforce public camping bans without providing shelter alternatives, potentially leading to an expansion of punitive approaches to homelessness. This could exacerbate the criminalization of poverty, increase incarceration rates among unhoused populations, and strain already limited public resources without addressing the main causes of homelessness. The ruling is especially alarming in the context of growing housing insecurity. Many tenants, particularly older adults and people with disabilities living on fixed or low incomes, live under the constant threat of homelessness due to unaffordable rent increases or eviction. Moreover, the impact of homelessness is not evenly distributed. It falls disproportionately on Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. The most effective solutions to regulating public camping lies in expanding access to affordable housing as well as supportive health and social services. Ultimately, the ruling allows municipalities to address visible homelessness through law enforcement rather than structural solutions, reinforcing a punitive approach to poverty. This has profound implications not only for individuals experiencing homelessness, but also for the legal boundaries of local governance and the constitutional limits of punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson grants local governments broader discretion to regulate the visible effects of homelessness through criminal or civil penalties. By ruling that local governments may enforce anti-camping ordinances, even when no adequate shelter is available, the Court narrowed the protective scope of the Eighth Amendment by emphasizing that its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment governs only the nature of penalties and not the conduct, such as sleeping or camping in public. This decision allows municipalities to impose fines and jail time on individuals experiencing homelessness for the mere act of surviving in public spaces (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024). Many local jurisdictions lack the resources or political will to implement comprehensive, humane solutions to managing homelessness. As a result, the decision may lead to increasingly punitive approaches, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. I argue that the ruling fails to recognize the structural causes of homelessness, such as the shortage of affordable housing, mental health services, and living-wage employment. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling raises concerns about whether the law, as interpreted, can meet the demands of justice in a time of growing inequality. The path forward demands a holistic and compassionate approach that is grounded in both legal principles and moral responsibility to ensure that the basic rights and dignity of unhoused individuals are respected. The true test of our constitutional values lies not in how we treat the powerful, but in how we respond to the needs of citizens with the least. While the decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a setback, it is not the end of the legal or moral fight. As Justice Sotomayor observed, other constitutional claims, particularly under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, remain available avenues for future litigation. The Due Process Clause safeguards a person's rights to life, liberty, and property, and guarantees fair treatment under the law. The Fifth Amendment restricts the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment extends similar protections at the state level (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024, p. 71). The fight for dignity, equity, and housing justice continues.

Bibliography

Boesche, H. (2024, July 15). Camping Revisited: U.S. Supreme Court Changes the Landscape of Penalizing Public Zleeping. Municipal Research and Services Center. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2024/grants-pass-v-johnson#:~:text=The%20Grants%20Pass%20decision%20means%20that%20localities%20may%20impose%20criminal,to%20accommodate%20their%20unhoused%20population.

Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/04/01/15-35845.pdf.

National Constitution Center. Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment. National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii/clauses/103.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2024). City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al., 603 U.S. No. 23–175. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf.