Supreme Court finds that Eighth Amendment does not bar enforcement of camping laws on public property

June 28, 2024

Click to download the PDF file

City of Grants Pass vs. JohnsonNo. 23-175 – decided on June 28, 2024

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not prohibit low fines and prison sentences for camping on public property.

“Fundamentally, the question this case raises is whether the Eighth Amendment gives federal judges primary responsibility for assessing the causes (of homelessness) and developing those responses. “I don’t admit it.”

Judge Gorsuch, writing for the Court

Background:

The Eighth Amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishments” shall not be “inflicted.” Martin v. Boise920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that it would be cruel and unusual to impose any penalty, no matter how minor, for sleeping on public property if the person “does not have access to alternative shelter.” ID. at 615. Penalizing a person for such an “involuntary act or condition,” the Ninth Circuit argued, would be tantamount to punishing the “status” of homelessness. ID. at 616-617.

Soon after MartinThe plaintiffs sued Grants Pass, a small town in Oregon. The plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass’s bans on camping on public property violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction exceeds the number of shelter beds. Application Martinthe district court included a class of “involuntarily homeless” persons in Grants Pass and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. After approval by the Ninth Circuit, Grants Pass’s petition for an en banc rehearing was denied by a 14-13 vote, with dissenters joining in five opinions criticizing Martin and its extension in this case. The Supreme Court then granted a motion for cert to decide whether the Ninth Circuit correctly interpreted the Eighth Amendment.

Edition:

Does enforcing general camping laws on public lands constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Court ruling:

Small fines and jail terms are not cruel and unusual punishments for camping in public places, even for people who are voluntarily homeless.

What does it mean:

Supreme Court begins discussion of practical implications of Ninth Circuit ruling Martin rule. Although the Court found that “the Ninth Circuit’s intervention in Martin well-intentioned,” the Court noted that many cities use public camping ordinances “as one important tool, among others, to encourage homeless people to accept services and to help provide safe and accessible sidewalks and public spaces.” The Court noted evidence that acceptance of services declined under the Martin—for example, shelter utilization in Grants Pass has dropped by 40% since the class order was issued.
The Supreme Court has ruled that light fines and prison terms are ordinary punishments that are neither cruel nor unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Robinson v. California370 U.S. 660 (1962), which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from making the “status” of being an addict a crime, regardless of the penalty. As the Court explained, camping in public places, even if allegedly necessitated by circumstances, is conduct, not a status under Robinson and is therefore subject to standard Eighth Amendment analysis.
The Supreme Court has also argued that the Eighth Amendment should not be distorted to address issues addressed by other constitutional provisions and common law doctrines. For example, the Court has recognized the Due Process Clause as a traditional basis for constitutional arguments about criminal liability and the “necessity” defense as a traditional state law doctrine potentially available to people sentenced to prison or a fine for doing something (such as camping in public) who had no choice but to do it. The Court explained that the Eighth Amendment simply does not provide any guidance for deciding when cities may regulate public campgrounds.
The Court highlighted the broad coalition of hundreds of amici that supported the Grants Pass retrial. As the Court noted, nearly half the states, including California Governor Newsom, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and the cities of Anchorage, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, and Seattle, among others, criticized the Ninth Circuit for tying government interests in responding to the urgent homelessness crisis. The Court’s decision returns “the full range of tools in the policy toolbox” to “citizens and their elected representatives.”

Represented by Gibson Dunn City of Grants Pass How Applicant.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

Gibson Dunn attorneys are available to help you with any questions you may have about developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please contact the following practice leaders:

Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice

Related practice: Litigation

Related Practice: Real Estate

Related practice: Land use and development

This alert was prepared by contributors Patrick Fuster, Daniel Adler, Lefteri Christos and Karl Kaellenius.

Attorney Advertising: These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only, based on information available at the time of publication, do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts or circumstances and should not be relied upon. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys and employees) assume no liability in connection with any use of these materials. The provision of these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and they should not be relied upon as an alternative to the advice of a qualified attorney. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary and prior results do not guarantee a similar result.