603 U.S. 520 (2024) · 2024
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
homelessnesscriminalizationEighth Amendmentlocal governmentpublic campingLandmark
Summary
Grants Pass reversed a Ninth Circuit rule that had limited enforcement of public-camping bans against unhoused people when shelter space was unavailable. The Court held that generally applicable camping restrictions do not impose cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling does not decide every possible constitutional or statutory challenge to homelessness enforcement.
Background & Context
The case arose from homelessness enforcement in Grants Pass, Oregon. The city used fines, park exclusions, and possible jail time for repeated violations of camping restrictions. Lower courts applied Ninth Circuit precedent that treated enforcement against involuntarily homeless people as unconstitutional when shelter space was unavailable.
The Question Before the Court
Does enforcing generally applicable public-camping ordinances against unhoused people violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment?
Petitioner
City of Grants Pass
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- You cannot criminalize someone's status.
- It is cruel and unusual punishment.
Respondent
Johnson
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The law punishes conduct, not status.
- The Eighth Amendment is about the method of punishment.
- Courts shouldn't micromanage city policies.
The Holding
The enforcement of generally applicable public-camping laws does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
6-3
Vote
Joined decision
6 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
Dissented
3 justicesEK
Elena Kagan
Dissent
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Dissent
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling gives cities more legal room to clear encampments and fine or arrest people for public camping. The people most directly affected are unhoused residents, especially in Western states where the Ninth Circuit rule had limited enforcement. The decision shifts more power to local governments while leaving fights over shelter, housing, sanitation, public safety, and civil-rights protections to legislatures and other legal claims.
Key Takeaways
- The Court held that public-camping enforcement is not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
- The majority treated the ordinances as regulating conduct, not status.
- The decision rejected the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. Boise framework.
- The dissent argued the ruling allows punishment of people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.
- The practical effect is more local enforcement power over encampments and public sleeping.
Decision
6-3 majority opinion
- Citation
- 603 U.S. 520 (2024)
- Vote
- 6-3
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- April 22, 2024
- Decided
- June 28, 2024
- Term
- 2023
- Opinion author
- Neil Gorsuch
Justice Gorsuch wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas concurred. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.