The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a case involving an Oregon city’s efforts to enforce local laws against camping on public property, marking a significant development for migrants and homeless individuals in the United States. Grants Pass, a southern Oregon city of approximately 40,000 residents, appealed a lower court’s ruling that declared its ordinances, prohibiting camping on sidewalks, streets, parks, and other public spaces, as a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars “cruel and unusual” punishment.
The legal dispute originated from a class-action complaint filed in 2018 by three homeless individuals against Grants Pass, contending that the anti-camping laws constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment. These ordinances can lead to civil fines, bans from city property, and criminal prosecution for trespassing. With Grants Pass hosting between 50 and 600 homeless individuals and insufficient shelter beds, the case underscores the challenges posed by the homelessness crisis.
Theane Evangelis, representing Grants Pass, expressed eagerness to present the case, asserting that decisions by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a similar case in Idaho have contributed to the proliferation of homelessness encampments in Western cities. Evangelis argued that these decisions were legally flawed and have hindered local governments’ efforts to address the pressing homelessness crisis.
More Read
Various western cities and states affected by the 9th Circuit decision have supported Grants Pass’s appeal. The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether cities can penalize homeless residents merely for existing without access to shelter, according to Ed Johnson, the litigation director at the Oregon Law Center, who assists the plaintiffs challenging the ordinances. California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the 9th Circuit’s decision in a legal brief, highlighting its negative impact on lawmakers’ ability to find solutions to homelessness.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case follows the 9th Circuit’s rejection of an appeal by San Francisco to lift judicial restrictions on the city’s ability to clear homeless encampments. As this legal battle unfolds, it raises broader questions about addressing homelessness and the role of local ordinances in managing this complex societal issue.
