The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday, allowing cities to prohibit homeless individuals from sleeping outside, reinforcing local anti-camping laws.
The Washington Post reported that the decision, made with a 6-3 vote, determines that such bans do not infringe upon the Eighth Amendment, even when no indoor shelter is available.
The case arose from Grants Pass, Oregon, where anti-camping laws had been firmly enforced since 2018, leading to a series of lawsuits from the city's homeless residents.
The ruling holds implications for officials nationwide, especially in areas facing high housing costs like the American West.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, asserting that such prohibitions do not equate to “cruel and unusual punishment.”
He wrote, "Homelessness is complex," and emphasized that the Eighth Amendment does not grant federal judges the authority to impose specific homelessness policies across the nation. The ruling sends the case back to lower courts for further assessment of other objections to the Grants Pass regulations.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly opposed the ruling, arguing, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” and deeming the anti-camping laws “unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
The ruling had input from various officials, including those from different political backgrounds such as California Governor Gavin Newsom and officials from Republican-led states.
Governor Newsom praised the ruling, saying, “This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”
Theane Evangelis, attorney for Grants Pass, welcomed the decision, noting it provided “urgent relief to the many communities that have struggled to address the growing problem of dangerous encampments.”
Nonetheless, Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, expressed disappointment, stating that the Constitution should not permit cities to penalize homeless residents for sleeping outside when no alternative shelter is available.
Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, cautioned that the ruling could establish a harmful precedent.
Similarly, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass expressed concerns about the decision, highlighting that it would neither work nor save lives and would cost taxpayers more than actually resolving the problem.
Despite the ruling, city leaders in Grants Pass indicated that no immediate changes would follow. The city's anti-camping measures, strictly enforced since 2018, had previously been halted by judges if no shelter was available. The city is required to align its anti-camping bans with Oregon state law, ensuring they remain “objectively reasonable.”
In the interim, many homeless individuals in Grants Pass find shelter in public parks. Service providers fear that the ruling might lead to more violent confrontations between residents and homeless individuals.
Mayor Sara Bristol emphasized the complexity of the issue, stating, “We do need to address the causes of homelessness and help homeless people, and we do need to protect our public spaces.” Bristol underscored the need for collective efforts to resolve the crisis.
Cassy Leach, founder of the Mobile Integrative Navigation Team, highlighted the continuous need to support homeless individuals regardless of legal battles, asserting, “Homelessness isn’t going away. It’s only going to continue to skyrocket.” Leach believes that despite the small size of the town, a united community could significantly address the crisis.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow cities to ban outdoor sleeping has sparked diverse reactions and holds far-reaching implications for handling homelessness across the U.S.
While some officials see it as a victory for public safety, others worry about the ethical and practical consequences for homeless individuals. As the case returns to lower courts, cities like Grants Pass face ongoing challenges in balancing public space management with support for their homeless populations.
This decision clarifies the legal landscape but also magnifies the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness. Communities must now navigate the ruling's implications while continuing efforts to provide necessary support and housing options for those in need.
