It’s OK to ban homeless people from camping in public, high court rules

Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

 

Connecting state and local government leaders

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with states and cities, saying anti-camping laws are not “cruel and unusual punishment” and that the laws of Grants Pass, Oregon, did not punish people for being homeless.

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a broad coalition of states and cities Friday, as it overturned a rule in the Western U.S. that prohibited them from banning homeless people from camping on public lands.

The six-judge majority, in a decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the rule created by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was both impractical and legally unsound. The 2018 rule, spelled out in the case of Martin v. Boise, prevented Western cities and other local governments from dispersing camps of unhoused people, unless there were adequate shelter options available for them to use instead.

But the appeals court’s rule, Gorsuch wrote, “exemplifies much of what can go wrong when courts try to resolve matters like those unmoored from any secure guidance in the Constitution.”

Many cities that filed friend-of-the-court briefs said injunctions based on the Martin decision “inadvertently contributed” to the homelessness crisis, rather than helping to alleviate it, Gorsuch wrote.

The underlying case comes from Grants Pass, a city of nearly 40,000 people in southern Oregon. The city passed several anti-camping laws in 2013 in response to a growing population of unhoused people staying on public property. But advocates challenged those laws shortly after the Martin decision came down.

The 9th Circuit reasoned that anti-camping laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment because the ordinances punished people for who they were rather than for specific acts. The Supreme Court said in 1962 that it was illegal to punish people for their status (like being addicted to drugs) rather than their actions.

But on Friday, Gorsuch said the Eighth Amendment was a “poor foundation” for attacking laws that created crimes, rather than specified punishments. He even questioned the wisdom of the 1962 case, without overruling it.

In any event, Gorsuch said, the laws of Grants Pass did not punish people for being homeless.

“Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like occupying a campsite on public property for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live,” he wrote. “Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Gorsuch.

The conservatives said the Martin decision from the San Francisco-based appeals court was impractical, providing a lengthy list of problems that cities encountered while trying to abide by it.

For example, the 9th Circuit said local governments couldn’t punish people who are “involuntarily” homeless, Gorsuch wrote.

“But how are city officials and law enforcement officers to know what it means to be ‘involuntarily’ homeless, or whether any particular person meets that standard?” he asked. “Posing the questions may be easy; answering them is not. Is it enough that a homeless person has turned down an offer of shelter? Or does it matter why? Cities routinely confront individuals who decline offers of shelter for any number of reasons, ranging from safety concerns to individual preferences. How are cities and their law enforcement officers on the ground to know which of these reasons are sufficiently weighty to qualify a person as ‘involuntarily’ homeless?”

“If there are answers to those questions, they cannot be found in the cruel and unusual punishments clause,” Gorsuch added. “Nor do federal judges enjoy any special competence to provide them.”

He dismissed the test that the judges in the Martin case gave, which he called “back-of-the-envelope arithmetic.” The lower court said people should be considered involuntarily homeless if there were fewer shelter spots available at a given time than there were people who needed them.

“But as sometimes happens with abstract rules created by those far from the front lines, that test has proven all but impossible to administer in practice,” Gorsuch wrote, noting that keeping an up-to-date tally on the number of people in need of shelter on a given day was a “monumentally difficult” task. There are also difficulties determining what shelter spots are available, because many facilities impose rules on drug use or pets or require religious instruction for their constituents.

“By extending [the 1962 case] beyond the narrow class of status crimes, the 9th Circuit has created a right that has proven impossible for judges to delineate except by fiat,” Gorsuch wrote.

“As a result, cities report, Martin has undermined their efforts to balance conflicting public needs and mired them in litigation at a time when the homelessness crisis calls for action,” he said. Gorsuch pointed out that use of a local shelter in Grants Pass (which requires its constituents to work 40-hour weeks and limits pets) had dropped by 40% since courts enjoined the city’s anti-camping laws. Other cities reported similar drop-offs.

Gorsuch—who during oral arguments questioned the point of jail sentences for repeat offenses of the anti-camping law—said Friday’s decision did not prevent states, cities or counties from eliminating anti-camping laws. In fact, he noted, Oregon state lawmakers had codified many parts of the Martin decision after the appeals court’s decision came down.

“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions,” he wrote, “but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this nation’s homelessness policy.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and former San Francisco mayor who urged the high court to overturn the Martin decision, praised Friday’s ruling. The decision, he said on social media, “removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”

But the three liberal members of the Supreme Court dissented from Friday’s ruling, arguing that the anti-camping measures targeted people who had no way to comply.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow.”

“For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment,” she added. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in her dissent.

The group chastised the majority for focusing too heavily on the plight of local officials and not enough on the plight of people who have no homes.

“It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused,” she added. “This court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular. Otherwise, the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.”

Sotomayor further questioned the majority’s logic for determining that the Grants Pass ordinances punish actions rather than people’s status.

“The best the majority can muster is the following tautology: The ordinances criminalize conduct, not pure status, because they apply to conduct, not status,” she wrote. “The flaw in this conclusion is evident. The majority countenances the criminalization of status as long as the city tacks on an essential bodily function—blinking, sleeping, eating, or breathing. That is just another way to ban the person.”

The National Homelessness Law Center called Friday’s decision “profoundly disappointing.”

“Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive and cruel,” the group said in a statement. “Cities are now even more empowered to neglect proven housing-based solutions and to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors. While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors.”

X
This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More / Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Accept Cookies
X
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary Cookies as they are deployed in order to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information about the First and Third Party Cookies used please follow this link.

Allow All Cookies

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies - Always Active

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data, Targeting & Social Media Cookies

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, you have the right to opt-out of the sale of your personal information to third parties. These cookies collect information for analytics and to personalize your experience with targeted ads. You may exercise your right to opt out of the sale of personal information by using this toggle switch. If you opt out we will not be able to offer you personalised ads and will not hand over your personal information to any third parties. Additionally, you may contact our legal department for further clarification about your rights as a California consumer by using this Exercise My Rights link

If you have enabled privacy controls on your browser (such as a plugin), we have to take that as a valid request to opt-out. Therefore we would not be able to track your activity through the web. This may affect our ability to personalize ads according to your preferences.

Targeting cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Social media cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

If you want to opt out of all of our lead reports and lists, please submit a privacy request at our Do Not Sell page.

Save Settings
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.