Grants Pass, OR — April 23, 2024 — Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a pivotal case challenging a local ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, which prohibits the use of blankets or pillows by those sleeping on public land. This hearing represents a significant legal and societal issue amidst rising homelessness rates nationally and the growing number of encampments in urban areas.
The city of Grants Pass, with a population of nearly 40,000, has become a focal point in the national conversation on how cities can manage public spaces while respecting the rights of the homeless. The case, following an increase in homelessness and public encampments, tests the boundaries of municipal powers against the constitutional rights outlined in the Eighth Amendment.
Background of the Case:
This Supreme Court case revisits issues similar to those raised in a previous case from Boise, Idaho, which the Court declined to hear in 2019. Since then, homelessness has only intensified, with a federal count identifying over 250,000 people living in makeshift accommodations such as parks, streets, and vehicles. The city’s ordinance was designed to ensure that public lands remain open and safe for all citizens but was challenged as being unconstitutional for penalizing the status of being homeless when no adequate shelter alternatives are available.
Legal Arguments and Perspectives:
During the oral arguments, the justices appeared divided. The Court’s liberal justices questioned the fairness of targeting homeless individuals for performing the unavoidable act of sleeping in the absence of shelter options. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the essential, involuntary nature of sleep, likening it to other basic human necessities that should not be criminalized. Conversely, the Court’s conservative justices emphasized the complexities of policymaking regarding homelessness and questioned the appropriateness of judicial intervention in such intricate policy arenas. They raised concerns about where to draw the line between an individual’s conduct and their status.
Implications for Grants Pass and Beyond:
The City of Grants Pass argues that the Ninth Circuit’s previous rulings have severely limited the city’s ability to regulate the use of its public spaces, inadvertently encouraging the proliferation of encampments. The city lacks sufficient public shelter capacity, with a shortage of 4,000 housing units, reflecting a national crisis of affordable housing scarcity. This legal battle comes at a time when cities and states across the country are adopting various strategies to manage homelessness. Some jurisdictions have implemented sweeping camping bans, while others, like Florida, have introduced measures to relocate homeless populations into government-run facilities.
Concerns and Future Outlook:
A decision favoring the city could lead to more aggressive strategies nationwide for handling public encampments, potentially triggering a wave of exclusionary practices against homeless populations. However, such measures do not address the underlying issues of housing affordability and availability that drive homelessness. Grants Pass officials stress that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, the city will continue to face significant challenges in addressing homelessness, given the critical lack of adequate shelter and affordable housing. The outcome of this case is unlikely to resolve the broader systemic issues but will set a significant precedent affecting the treatment of homeless individuals across the United States.
