During its 2023-2024 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard several monumental cases whose decisions have impacts for local government. Among the most notable of those was Grants Pass v. Johnson, a decision that holds major significance for local governments in their efforts to respond to the homelessness crisis.

At issue in the case were a series of ordinances passed in Grants Pass, Oregon—a city with a population of approximately 38,000 residents including 600 individuals experiencing homelessness. The city passed several ordinances related to the regulation of sleeping outside, a violation that would result in fines that would escalate if left unpaid. Grants Pass' ordinances prohibited camping (sleeping with any bedding and/or shelter) in a public park, and enabled police officers to issue citations to those in violation, which could eventually escalate to criminal trespass. The maximum penalty for violation of the Grants Pass ordinance is 30 days in jail, which the Court found to be well below the threshold for ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.

As a result of these ordinances, two homeless individuals in Grants Pass filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who are "involuntarily homeless," arguing that the city's ordinances were under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding that “the anti-camping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause to the extent they prohibited homeless individuals from ‘taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available.’” Although the city had four temporary shelters, none were “adequate” for their homeless population.    

The Court's 6-3 decision in Grants Pass, issued on June 28, held that anti-encampment ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, stressing that this clause applies to legal issues relating to methods of punishment and not whether certain conduct can be criminalized. In the words of the Court, “But if many other constitutional provisions address what a government may criminalize and how it may go about securing a conviction, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” focuses on what happens next. That Clause “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment” a government may “impos[e] for the violation of criminal statutes.” The opinion also noted that the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize federal judges… to dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” 

The Grants Pass decision is expected to have a significant impact on how local governments address homelessness encampments in their cities, returning the difficult task (both the majority opinion and the dissent acknowledge that the issue is one of the most difficult facing local policymakers) of determining how to address the homelessness crisis to state and local policymakers, in manners consistent with local needs.