City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

This case examined whether an Oregon city's ordinances penalizing sleeping or camping on public property constitute cruel and unusual punishment against homeless individuals. The City of Grants Pass enforced bans on camping with bedding materials, imposing fines and potential trespass exclusions from parks. Plaintiffs, homeless residents Gloria Johnson and John Logan, argued these laws effectively criminalized their existence in a city lacking sufficient shelter beds. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling, holding that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances does not violate the Eighth Amendment because the laws target conduct, not status, and fines constitute a civil punishment, not a cruel one.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Grants Pass, holding that the anti-camping ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment. The majority determined the laws regulate actions rather than criminalizing the status of being homeless, and that civil fines and limited jail time for trespassing do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from enforcing public camping ordinances against involuntarily homeless individuals when shelter space is unavailable.

The ruling grants Western cities broader authority to clear homeless encampments, sparking intense national debate. Advocates for the unhoused warn it could criminalize poverty and force relocations without addressing housing shortages. Conversely, municipal leaders argue it restores necessary tools for managing public health and safety. The decision underscores deep societal divisions over how to humanely balance compassion for the homeless with civic order and public space accessibility.