Homeless People Left ‘With an Impossible Choice: Either Stay Awake or Be Arrested.’ -Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor
Today, the Supreme Court dealt a decisive blow to a precedent that prevented cities from using fines, fees, and arrests to punish people experiencing homelessness when no shelter is available.
The Court ruled in Johnson v. Grants Pass that public camping bans do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, because the punishments are widely used. This finding directly contradicts the precedent set in Martin v. Boise, which held that these punishments are unconstitutional when a city lacks enough shelter space.
The justices decided the case on a 6-3 vote along partisan lines.
Advocates chided the ruling as one that will make homelessness harder to solve. They also worry it could make it easier for cities to simply push people experiencing homelessness out of their jurisdiction instead of providing services.
“Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center. “This inhumane ruling, which contradicts the values of nearly three-quarters of Americans, will make homelessness worse in Grants Pass and nationwide.”
In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor criticized the conservative justices who signed on to the majority opinion for “[focusing] 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.”
“This Court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular,“ Sotomayor wrote in her opinion, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Otherwise, ‘the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.’“
Camping Ban Unfairly Targets Homeless People
Johnson v. Grants Pass has been meandering through the court system for more than a year. Plaintiffs argued that a municipal ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, that prohibits camping on public property unfairly targeted people experiencing homelessness. However, city officials argued that the ordinance was necessary to protect private property and promote public health.
Cities across the American West were prohibited from using similar ordinances to remove homeless encampments under the 2022 precedent, Martin v. Boise. Justice Neil Gorsuch found that the Martin precedent effectively allowed people to be “excused from ‘moral accountability‘” for committing criminal acts like sleeping outside.
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,“ Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling effectively excuses political leaders for their lack of action to provide affordable housing and shelter options.
“At a time when elected officials need to be focused on long-term, sustainable solutions that are grounded in evidence – including funding the affordable housing and supportive services that their constituents need — this ruling allows leaders to shift the burden to law enforcement,“ Oliva said. “This tactic has consistently failed to reduce homelessness in the past, and it will assuredly fail to reduce homelessness in the future.”
Democrat lawmakers like Jerrold Nadler and Lou Correa, the ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee, also chided the Supreme Court ruling as one that “comes at the expense of the American people.“
“Today’s decision provides yet more proof that the far-right supermajority on the Supreme Court will cast aside whatever precedent it wants in its quest to increase its own power and that of its MAGA allies across the country,“ the lawmakers said in a joint statement.
How You Can Help
With the Supreme Court’s gutting of essential protections for homeless people, our work is more critical than ever. Nationwide, anti-homeless laws are gaining ground in legislative committees, fueled by hidden votes, corporate backing, out-of-state lobbyists, and conservative think tanks like the Cicero Institute. We’re fighting a crucial battle against misinformation and the criminalization of homelessness.
The pandemic underscored the urgent need to overhaul housing policies in the United States, revealing that many homelessness initiatives rely too heavily on law enforcement rather than social services.
Stand with our vulnerable neighbors and urge your representatives to take meaningful action to address homelessness. As the first step toward ending homelessness, we must prioritize compassionate solutions over punitive measures.
