Grant’s Pass, Homelessness, and the Constitutionality of Anti-Sleeping and Anti-Camping Ordinances

Homelessness is a challenging problem. Some cities have attempted to address it, in part, by prohibiting sleeping or camping in public places. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering whether, and under what circumstances, such ordinances are constitutional. I recently listened to the oral arguments in the case. Those who are currently litigating violations of anti-sleeping or anti-camping ordinances may be interested in this summary of the issues, as may those responsible for shaping municipal policy. Background. Johnson v. City of Grant’s Pass, 72 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023), began as a class action lawsuit by involuntarily homeless individuals against an Oregon city, challenging the city’s anti-sleeping and anti-camping ordinances. A district court, and the Ninth Circuit on appeal, ruled that the challenged ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as to the plaintiffs. The court built on its prior decision in Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018), which it summarized as holding that “it is an Eighth Amendment violation to criminally punish involuntarily homeless persons for sleeping in public if there are no other public areas or appropriate shelters where those individuals can sleep.” (In the Grant’s Pass case, the record suggested that there were several hundred homeless individuals in the city, and fewer than 100 shelter beds, rendering the plaintiffs “involuntarily” homeless.) The city attempted to distinguish Martin on two grounds. First, it argued that the initial penalty for violations of its ordinances was civil, not criminal. But [...]