Grants Pass, Oregon, is once again in the national spotlight, but not for reasons the city’s leaders likely hoped for. On January 30, 2025, two prominent law firms, Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) and the Oregon Law Center (OLC), filed a joint lawsuit in Josephine County Circuit Court, requesting a temporary injunction to halt the city’s enforcement of restrictions on homeless residents. This legal action has thrust the city into a renewed debate over its handling of homelessness, particularly the treatment of individuals with disabilities living in the area.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five individuals, ranging in age from 47 to 66, all of whom live with disabilities and currently reside in Grants Pass. These residents are challenging the city’s recent decision to close down one of its two designated homeless campsites — the larger J Street site — and to limit the hours of operation for the other, located at 7th Street. This legal challenge follows the city’s enforcement of new ordinances which threaten homeless individuals with citations and possible 30-day exclusions from the campsites if they fail to comply with the newly imposed restrictions.
The core issue at hand is the closure of J Street, which had provided shelter to approximately 120 homeless individuals. The lawsuit claims that these new actions by the city exacerbate an already dire situation for those living on the streets. With the J Street site closed and the 7th Street site now only available from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m., homeless individuals are faced with the impossible task of packing up their belongings each morning and finding a place to store them during the day, with no legal place to set down their things.
This legal battle comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which upheld the constitutionality of cities imposing restrictions on homeless individuals who do not have other shelter options. The decision had significant implications for cities across the nation, solidifying the ability of municipalities to regulate homelessness through punitive measures. However, the ruling also referenced Oregon state law, specifically ORS 195.530 — also known as HB 3115 — which mandates that local regulations addressing homelessness must be “objectively reasonable” and take into account the totality of circumstances, including the impact on people experiencing homelessness.
Despite this, the plaintiffs argue that the city’s actions violate both the spirit and the letter of the state law. In their complaint, they emphasize that the city’s approach to homelessness fails to meet the standard of “objective reasonableness” required under Oregon law. The plaintiffs also argue that the city’s actions fail to consider the practical realities faced by individuals with disabilities who rely on these campsites as a vital lifeline.
The case has sparked outrage among local advocates for homeless individuals, who argue that the new regulations do nothing to address the underlying issues of homelessness, such as the lack of affordable housing, mental health care, and addiction services. They point to the city’s failure to provide adequate resources for homeless individuals and criticize the move as one that could lead to further displacement and hardship for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
The legal complaint seeks a temporary restraining order to immediately stop the city from closing the J Street campsite and to prevent further enforcement of the restricted hours at 7th Street. The plaintiffs argue that these actions are causing significant harm to those already struggling to survive, especially individuals with disabilities who may find it particularly difficult to comply with the city’s new regulations.
City officials, for their part, have defended the restrictions, arguing that they are necessary for public safety and to ensure that homeless individuals have access to a safe and controlled environment. However, critics contend that the closures and the limited hours of operation at the remaining campsite do not provide adequate relief and only serve to criminalize homelessness, rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis.
The lawsuit has captured the attention of the broader Oregon community, and it has become a focal point for discussions on how cities across the state should address homelessness. Advocates for the homeless argue that punitive measures like those implemented by Grants Pass only serve to further marginalize vulnerable populations and do little to offer lasting solutions.
As the case moves through the court system, it remains to be seen how the judge will rule on the request for a temporary injunction. If granted, the ruling could potentially force the city to reopen the J Street campsite and extend the hours of operation at 7th Street, at least temporarily, while the broader legal battle continues.
For now, the lawsuit has highlighted the tension between the need for public safety and the rights of vulnerable individuals who are often caught in the crossfire of local government policies. It also serves as a reminder that the issue of homelessness in Oregon, and across the nation, remains far from resolved, with many advocates calling for a more compassionate and holistic approach to the crisis.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the residents of Grants Pass — and indeed, many in Oregon — will be watching closely to see how the court responds to this critical issue. One thing is clear: the city’s actions will continue to be a point of contention, as local leaders, advocates, and residents seek a resolution to one of the most pressing issues facing the state.