US Court Supports Anti-Homeless Camping Measures

US Court Upholds Anti-Camping Laws Aimed at Homeless

A federal court case challenged Grants Pass's anti-camping ordinances, arguing they criminalize homelessness. The city defended itself by citing alternative options for homeless individuals outside city limits, but the judge saw this as an attempt to drive them out or punish them for staying.

On Friday, June 28, the US Supreme Court upheld anti-camping laws, allowing authorities in Oregon and other jurisdictions to prohibit homeless individuals from sleeping in public parks and streets. This ruling gives local and state governments more flexibility in addressing the national homelessness crisis.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices overturned a lower court's ruling that had deemed enforcing these ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, unconstitutional when no shelter space is available. The lower court had found that enforcing these laws violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. However, the Supreme Court's decision now allows authorities to enforce these laws, even when shelter space is limited.

Similar anti-camping laws are used in various jurisdictions across the country, and this ruling is likely to have implications for how local governments address homelessness. The decision grants authorities more latitude in managing public spaces and responding to the complex issues surrounding homelessness.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices formed a majority in the ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch authoring the opinion. He wrote that homelessness is a complex issue with multiple causes, requiring diverse public policy responses. However, he emphasized that the Eighth Amendment does not grant federal judges primary responsibility for addressing homelessness or devising solutions.

In his opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged that homelessness remains a significant challenge for public officials nationwide, with many municipalities struggling with chronic shortages of affordable housing. According to US government estimates, over 600,000 people experience homelessness on any given night, highlighting the need for comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to address this issue.

The three liberal justices dissented from the majority opinion, indicating their disagreement with the court's decision to uphold anti-camping laws. The dissenting justices likely argued that such laws criminalize homelessness rather than addressing its root causes, exacerbating the problem and violating the constitutional rights of homeless individuals.

“Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best, they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better, they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case revolved around three ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, that prohibit sleeping in public areas, including streets, alleyways, and parks, while using bedding or blankets. These ordinances aim to maintain public safety and cleanliness, according to city officials and proponents.

Violations of these ordinances carry a $295 fine, and repeat offenders can face criminal charges for trespassing, punishable by up to 30 days in jail. Proponents argue that these laws are necessary to maintain order and protect the community, while critics argue that they unfairly target and criminalize homeless individuals.

Grants Pass, a city of approximately 38,000 people in southwestern Oregon, has enacted these ordinances to address concerns about public safety and sanitation. However, opponents argue that these laws perpetuate the criminalization of homelessness, rather than addressing its root causes or providing adequate support services for those in need.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissenting justices.

“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.”

Critics, including advocates for the homeless, liberal legal groups, and other opponents, argue that laws criminalizing homelessness unfairly target individuals for their circumstances rather than their actions. They contend that such laws essentially punish people for being homeless and for engaging in essential human activities like sleeping in public, which is often unavoidable for those without shelter.

These critics point to a 1962 Supreme Court ruling that established the principle that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing individuals based on their status rather than their conduct. In other words, the Constitution prohibits criminalizing people for who they are, rather than what they do. By criminalizing homelessness, these laws violate this fundamental principle and perpetuate the cycle of poverty and homelessness.

By advocating for the repeal of such laws, critics aim to address the root causes of homelessness, such as affordable housing shortages, poverty, and lack of access to healthcare and social services. They argue that criminalization only exacerbates the problem, driving homeless individuals further into the margins and making it harder for them to access the support they need to get back on their feet.

“A point of contention during the Supreme Court's arguments in the case in April was whether homelessness can be deemed a status that would prohibit enforcing local laws.

“Today, the US Supreme Court delivered urgent relief to the many communities that have struggled to address the growing problem of dangerous encampments.” Theane Evangelis, counsel for Grants Pass, said after the ruling.

Homeless advocates denounced the ruling as inhumane, warning that it will worsen the homelessness crisis by enabling cities to focus on criminalizing the homeless rather than addressing the root causes of homelessness through sustainable housing solutions.

"Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive and cruel.

“While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors,” said Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center.

“It is hard to imagine a starker example of excessive punishment than fining and jailing a person for the basic human act of sleeping,” added Scout Katovich, an American attorney Sotomayor, in her dissent, hinted that laws similar to those in Grants Pass may raise additional legal concerns, such as potential violations of the Fourth Amendment's protection of personal property. She suggested that these laws may face further legal challenges and ongoing litigation.

In 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed by three homeless individuals aiming to block measures targeting them in Grants Pass. Unfortunately, one of the plaintiffs has since passed away. The lawsuit challenged the city's policy and practice of criminalizing homelessness, arguing it violated the Eighth Amendment.

US Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the city's policy and practice of punishing homelessness constituted cruel and unusual punishment, thereby violating the Eighth Amendment. He issued an injunction barring the city from enforcing its anti-camping ordinances. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld Clarke's injunction, siding with the plaintiffs.

The case highlighted the ongoing struggle to address homelessness in the United States. Advocates argue that criminalizing homelessness only exacerbates the problem, while cities like Grants Pass contend that such measures are necessary to maintain public safety and cleanliness. The legal battle continues, with implications for how municipalities address homelessness nationwide.

The city attempted to justify its actions by claiming that homeless individuals have alternative options outside the city limits, such as federal land, county campsites, or state rest stops. 

However, the judge criticized this argument, suggesting that it reveals the city's intent to effectively banish its homeless population or punish them for remaining within the city, rather than providing support and solutions.