The US Supreme Court issued a ruling on the case of Johnson vs Grants Pass on June 28th, 2024, in what experts are calling the biggest case in the realm of homelessness in decades. The conservative majority on the SCOTUS ensured that the defendant, the City of Grants Pass, was favored by the ruling.
The initial case was a class action suit brought against the City on behalf of its homeless population. Grants Pass attempted, through a city ordinance, to restrict the use of pillows, blankets, and cardboard boxes to shelter oneself in a public place. This would make it illegal for any homeless person to shelter in a public space, meaning they would effectively have no place to go, especially considering the City does not have an adequate number of shelter beds to accommodate its unhoused population.
Through invoking another case, Martin v. Boise, the district court filed an injunction, seeing these ordinances as a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ of the status of homelessness. It essentially allowed jurisdictions to criminalize the status of homelessness, using the threat of fines or jail time to keep the homeless out of a community entirely.
It should go without saying that a hefty monetary fine would be a huge hinderance to someone trying to get back on their feet. That is without even mentioning how jail-time and a mark on one’s record would make it even harder to find a job or housing. These measures are counterproductive for getting the unhoused back into society, it just allows for cities to sweep them under the rug by forcing them out or locking them up.
The case then made its way to the highest court in the land. After deliberation, the SCOTUS ruling favored the City. The SCOTUS argument for why this is not ‘cruel and unusual’ is that the ordinance does not specify homeless people, but just seeks to cut down on ‘public camping’. It also argues that fines and jail-time do not constitute as ‘cruel and unusual’.
“Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building,” states the SCOTUS Syllabus for the case.
This does not preclude the fact that the ordinance was targeted toward and overwhelming used for the homeless community. A drifting backpacker with nowhere to stay, is also, for all intents and purposes, homeless, even if just for a handful of evenings. The distinctions in language and in practice are incongruous.
The latter example has even more disturbing implications. It actually expands the scope of the original ordinance, giving cities an example of how to use camping ordinances to squash what would otherwise be peaceful protests. It would arguably be a direct violation of the first-amendment rights to assembly and freedom of speech if a City attempted to use it in this manner. We can only wait and see how individual Cities chose to use this power.
Some conservative figures have already come out in support of this decision. Will Lathrop, republican candidate for Oregon Attorney General applauded the decision.
“The Supreme Court has rightfully decided the City of Grants Pass can enforce reasonable restrictions on homeless camps on public property. This decision effectively gives communities across our nation tools and clarity under the law to create and enforce reasonable restrictions on homeless camps, except in Oregon, where legalized tent cities remain the law under House Bill 3115,” said Lathrop.
There is no evidence that this expanded power will be used ‘reasonably’. Experts argue that the only ‘reasonable’ solution to homelessness is to provide resources and housing. The best tool that a city can have in its arsenal against excessive public camping, is an adequate amount of shelter space. Stating that a City can now make it illegal to camp, without requiring that they provide shelter for said campers, does nothing to alleviate homelessness other than attempting to force them out of one community and into another.
Senator Kayse Jama and Representative Pam Marsh agree, as they released a joint statement as head of their respective Housing Committees in the House and Senate.
“Our goal remains making sure every Oregonian has access to safe, affordable housing so no one has to resort to sleeping on the streets. Homelessness will be solved by building more housing, supporting shelters and programs to get people on the path out of homelessness.
“Local jurisdictions have a duty to maintain livability for everyone in their communities – and, importantly, there needs to be a reasonable balance between those concerns and the reality that too many Oregonians don’t have anywhere safe to sleep. Today’s Supreme Court ruling does nothing to solve the housing and homelessness crisis in Oregon,” stated the legislators.
As stated, only time will tell how cities chose to use this now-protected power. Will they actually attempt to ‘maintain livability’, as suggested by the House and Senate Housing Committees? Or will cities choose ‘out of sight, out of mind’, and force their homeless populations elsewhere, or in the worst case, incarcerate them en masse.
Most Popular
Comments / 0