The ongoing legal battle between the City of Grants Pass and civil rights advocates has become a flashpoint in the city’s efforts to address homelessness. A recently filed lawsuit and resulting court injunction are forcing city leaders—and the public—to reckon with the consequences of a series of decisions made earlier this year.
The legal action, brought by Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Law Center, challenges the city’s handling of homeless policies following a January 7, 2025, City Council meeting. The complaint alleges that the city’s moves to restrict camping options for homeless residents—many of whom live with disabilities—violated both state law and constitutional protections.
At a recent town hall meeting, Councilor Erich Schloegl sought to explain the city’s position, attributing the current lawsuit in part to Oregon House Bill 3115, which requires cities to adopt “time, place, and manner” restrictions on public camping that are objectively reasonable. Schloegl labeled the legislation an “unfunded mandate” and described the former J Street campsite as a “massive crime haven.” He also suggested that the origins of the lawsuit predate the Council’s January decisions.
However, court records paint a different picture. According to the lawsuit, the City Council’s January 7 actions are central to the legal challenge. On that date, the Council voted to close the J Street campsite, which at the time hosted approximately 120 tents. Simultaneously, the Council imposed new restrictions on the hours of operation at the only remaining sanctioned campsite at 7th Street—mandating that it be closed daily between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Critics argue that these moves left hundreds of homeless residents with no legal or safe alternatives, particularly during the harsh winter months. The smaller 7th Street site could accommodate only a fraction of those displaced from J Street and lacked accessible infrastructure to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. The lawsuit contends that these actions created life-threatening conditions for vulnerable residents.
Specifically, the complaint asserts that the city’s policies violate ORS 195.530(2), which requires that restrictions on camping in public spaces be objectively reasonable. It further claims that the daily requirement to dismantle and move campsites disproportionately harms people with disabilities who are unable to comply. The lawsuit also accuses the city of effectively criminalizing homelessness under the pretense of public safety and of eliminating viable, safe options for unsheltered residents.
Adding to the controversy was the Council’s decision—made the same day it voted to close J Street and limit hours at 7th Street—to rescind $660,000 in funding for a proposed low-barrier shelter. The funding, part of the MINT (Managed, Integrated Navigation & Transition) grant, would have helped establish a facility aimed at providing more stable accommodations for homeless individuals.
According to the lawsuit and advocates familiar with the case, the loss of this funding further undermined the city’s ability to comply with HB 3115. While the state law allows for reasonable restrictions on public camping, it assumes that municipalities will provide sufficient shelter alternatives. In the absence of expanded shelter capacity, Grants Pass faces legal scrutiny for enforcing restrictions that leave homeless residents with nowhere to go.
Advocates point to other Oregon cities that have responded to HB 3115 by increasing shelter options before implementing camping restrictions. By contrast, Grants Pass’ approach—closing campsites without providing alternatives—has drawn sharp criticism.
Schloegl and other council members argue that liability concerns and public safety motivated their decisions. Yet the lawsuit highlights how the Council’s actions have resulted in the opposite: a court injunction that now limits the city’s ability to enforce its own camping ordinances and has led to months of legal uncertainty.
The debate has become a political flashpoint, with some local leaders blaming past councils, state lawmakers, or unhoused residents themselves. But the central issue remains the choices made on January 7, which legal experts say directly triggered the current injunction.
Looking ahead, advocates are urging the Council to adopt a more constructive approach—one that prioritizes legal compliance and the well-being of all residents. Restoring MINT funding, expanding shelter capacity, and developing a comprehensive, accessible strategy for managing homelessness are viewed as necessary first steps.
The city’s leadership now faces a critical juncture. Continued legal battles and deflection of responsibility may further erode public trust and delay solutions. Many residents are calling for a clear-eyed acknowledgment of past missteps and a renewed commitment to crafting policies that uphold both the law and human dignity.
As the court case progresses, the future of Grants Pass’ homeless policies—and the city’s broader approach to governance—remains very much in the balance.