Local Implications of the Grants Pass Decision

Background: Grants Pass V. Johnson

A recent Supreme Court ruling threatens the unhoused and unsheltered populations throughout the United States. On April 22 the argument between City of Grants Pass, Oregon and Johnson was heard by the Supreme Court. On June 28, the Court released their opinion, which sided with Grants Pass. The argument was about the legality of public-camping ordinances, which prohibit the unsheltered population from sleeping outside in public spaces. Ordinances such as these had previously been ruled as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling, finding that public-camping ordinances are legal and do not violate the constitution under the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).³

The Supreme Court ruling opens the door for cities to criminalize being unhoused, even where there are no shelter beds available, further entrenching the cycle of homelessness.

The Ninth Circuit’s Johnson v. City of Grants Pass 2022 ruling set the precedent that enforcing public-camping ordinances in locations that have a higher number of unhoused individuals than shelter beds is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In contrast, this 2024 Supreme Court ruling opens the door for cities and municipalities to create and enforce ordinances that criminalize being unhoused, even in cases where there are no beds available in shelters. Ordinances like the one in Grants Pass classify those sleeping outside as “campers” in public spaces rather than unhoused or homeless. Indeed, those without housing often have no choice but to violate public-camping ordinances like those passed in Grants Pass. Who comes to mind when thinking of individuals sleeping outside, in parks, cars, or benches? Likely, the unhoused. Although the court claims that this ruling is not a target on the unhoused, it will disproportionately affect them. Indeed, there is no stipulation that prevents cities or counties from using public-camping ordinances to target the unhoused population.³

Cyclical Recidivism

One concern that rises from this decision is its impact on the recidivism cycle. The recidivism cycle refers to the cyclical nature of crime, incarceration, and release.² For example, Jacobs and Gottlieb found that “lack of regular housing at probation start and homelessness during probation interacted with criminal risk to predict recidivism… [I]n a context low in affordable housing and high in homelessness, moving to any residence may improve one’s circumstances and reduce recidivism.”⁷ The study concludes by encouraging “policies that ensure stable housing to probationers, including those otherwise classified as “low risk,” and research that understands the context-specific nature of residential circumstances.”⁷ However, anti-camping ordinances such as those in Grants do nothing to “ensure stable housing to probationers.” Rather, they criminalize the unhoused individuals experiencing homelessness by ensnaring them in this vicious cycle. Their crime: sleeping outside.

As it stands, individuals facing homelessness have a harder time obtaining employment. For example, navigating the job market without a permanent address, accessing hygiene, obtaining transportation, and acquiring other necessities needed for an interview make securing employment all the more complicated. If an individual is unhoused, they typically are also facing extreme poverty, which does not allow them to afford many belongings or basic necessities. If the unhoused population begins to be fined, or arrested, for sleeping in public, it will exacerbate their existing financial struggles and make it even more difficult for them to find a job. Similarly, the employed unhoused population will likely lose their employment if arrested, pushing them deeper into the cycle. Likewise, arrests will amplify their difficulties obtaining permanent housing.