Understanding Grants Pass v. Johnson: Why the Supreme Court Upheld Homelessness Bans

A common misunderstanding surrounding modern municipal law is that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down homelessness bans under the Eighth Amendment. In reality, the Court's landmark 2024 ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson did the exact opposite.[1][2][4]

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court held that local ordinances imposing civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land do not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," even if the jurisdiction lacks available shelter beds.[1][3][5]

The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of roughly 38,000 people with an estimated 600 unhoused residents. The city enacted ordinances prohibiting sleeping on public sidewalks, streets, and parks.[1][2]

The ordinances in Grants Pass were structured with escalating penalties. First-time violators faced civil fines, while repeat offenders could be issued exclusion orders banning them from city parks. Violating those exclusion orders escalated the matter to criminal trespass charges, which carried the threat of jail time.[1][5]

Plaintiffs, representing a class of involuntarily unhoused individuals, argued that punishing them for sleeping outside when they had nowhere else to go effectively criminalized the "status" of being homeless.[1][2]

They relied heavily on previous precedents, most notably the Ninth Circuit's 2018 Martin v. Boise decision. That ruling had established that the Eighth Amendment shielded involuntarily homeless individuals from camping bans if a city could not offer them a practical shelter alternative.[1][2]

The Supreme Court majority rejected the Ninth Circuit's framework entirely. The Court distinguished between criminalizing a "status"—which remains unconstitutional under the 1962 case Robinson v. California—and criminalizing "conduct," such as pitching a tent or sleeping in a park with a blanket.[1][3][5]

Justice Gorsuch wrote that the Eighth Amendment was designed to regulate the method or kind of punishment a government may impose, such as torture or hard labor. He argued it was never intended to dictate whether a government can criminalize a particular behavior in the first place.[1][5]

The majority emphasized that the Grants Pass camping bans applied universally to anyone who pitched a tent or slept in a park, regardless of their housing status. Because a housed person would theoretically face the same fine for camping in the park, the Court concluded the law targeted conduct, not the status of homelessness.[1][5]

In a pointed dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that sleep is a biological necessity.[1][3][5]

The dissenting justices contended that punishing people for sleeping outside when no shelter is available is functionally indistinguishable from punishing them for being homeless. Sotomayor accused the majority of using formalistic distinctions to evade the practical reality that unhoused individuals have no choice but to sleep in public.[1][5]

The ruling immediately shifted the landscape of municipal law. By effectively overturning Martin v. Boise, the decision granted local governments across the United States broad authority to clear encampments and enforce public camping bans without facing federal Eighth Amendment injunctions.[1][4]

Following the decision, several states and municipalities accelerated the dismantling of homeless encampments. Governors and mayors who had previously argued that federal courts were paralyzing their ability to manage public spaces quickly utilized their restored authority to enforce local ordinances.[1][4]

The Court explicitly noted that while the Eighth Amendment does not bar these bans, communities remain free to craft their own policy responses. The ruling shifted the battle over homelessness from federal courthouses back to city halls, state legislatures, and local elections, where the debate over how to balance public order with human dignity continues.[1][4]