In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the town of Grants Pass, Oregon's authority to penalize behaviors commonly associated with homelessness.
According to Axios, the Supreme Court ruled that Grants Pass's 24/7 ban on outdoor camping is not "cruel and unusual."
The case emerged from ongoing concerns in Grants Pass, where local ordinances make it illegal for individuals to utilize public spaces like sidewalks and parks as temporary living spots.
Under these regulations, individuals found in violation more than two times in a year face harsh punishments, including jail time of up to 30 days and fines reaching $1,250.
The Oregon Law Center initiated the legal challenge to the Grants Pass ordinance in 2018. Advocates argued that the city's actions violated the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. They particularly criticized the enforcement mechanisms that target the basic survival actions of the unhoused.
The supporting legislation from Oregon's state legislature in 2021, which mandates that local restrictions on using outdoor sleeping aids like blankets and pillows be "objectively reasonable," did not deter the city from continuing its sweeps of homeless encampments.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the intricacies of homelessness and suggested that a variety of public policy strategies may be necessary to address it. The 6-3 ruling underlines a significant tilt toward granting cities leeway in handling the public presence of homelessness according to their local laws and conditions.
From the perspective of the Oregon Law Center, this outcome is seen as a setback for rights and dignity. Ed Johnson, the center's director of litigation, expressed profound dismay following the verdict:
We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go.
Despite attempts to mitigate impacts on the unhoused through legislation, enforcement practices in Grants Pass and elsewhere have not substantially shifted post-legislation, leading to ongoing debates about the balance between public order and human rights.
While some residents and local businesses view the ruling as a necessary step towards maintaining public order and safety, critics argue it will exacerbate the challenges already faced by those without shelter. This ruling is crucial and calls into question how cities across the nation will tackle the visible symptoms of homelessness moving forward.
Justice Gorsuch’s acknowledgment of the complexity of homelessness underscores the vast spectrum of what considered ‘appropriate’ policies can look like, hinting at broader implications for policies across the United States.
The decision marks a pivotal interpretation of constitutional rights intersecting with urban policy and social issues, potentially setting a precedent for how municipalities enforce public space laws against vulnerable populations.
In sum, the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Grants Pass underscores a significant judicial stance on municipal authority over public spaces and brings forth serious considerations about the rights and treatment of unhoused individuals across the nation.
