{"id":36311,"date":"2024-07-01T19:08:14","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T19:08:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eccovia.com\/blog\/"},"modified":"2024-07-03T17:50:02","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T17:50:02","slug":"scotus-on-grants-pass-v-johnson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eccovia.com\/blog\/scotus-on-grants-pass-v-johnson\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Case on Homelessness: Grants Pass v. Johnson"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided on a case that promises to have some of the most profound consequences on homeless service providers yet. In this article, we will dive into SCOTUS\u2019s opinion that ruled in favor of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, which had been penalizing camping in some public spaces.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the crux of this case<\/a> is the question of whether it is Constitutional for municipalities in the United States to criminalize acts such as sleeping in public spaces. This stems from the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, introducing new policies that rendered \u201ccamping,\u201d including sleeping outdoors, criminal acts that could incur fines, and would have more severe consequences on repeat offenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to one city councilor of Grants Pass<\/a>, researchers noted, the goal of these ordinances was \u201cto make it uncomfortable enough for [homeless persons] in our city so they will want to move on down the road.\u201d (See page 17 of the PDF opinion hosted in the link.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opponents of the ordinances, who prevailed in lower courts<\/a>, argued that this penalization constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits \u201ccruel and unusual punishment,\u201d arguing that people experiencing unsheltered homelessness constitute a status or class that does not have anywhere else to sleep, and these ordinances criminalize their class, not merely their actions. The Supreme Court disagreed with that reasoning, siding with the City of Grants Pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The legal argument partially centers around whether homelessness is a state or condition (e.g., substance addiction), or an act (e.g., using illicit substances). Precedent holds that criminalizing a state or condition would violate the Eighth Amendment, while criminalizing an act would not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Writing for The New England Journal of Medicine, <\/em>Ryan Keen and Mayilyn Winkleby argue that homelessness is best understood<\/a> to be a state <\/em>and not an act. <\/em>Their reasoning is that that the causes of homelessness are extremely complex and include many factors outside the control of those who experience homelessness, including systemic factors, disability, and mental illness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWith most people who experience homelessness reporting multiple risk factors,\u201d write Keen and Winkleby, \u201cthese data suggest that homelessness is a status that is rarely attributable to a single characteristic or experience.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with this reasoning and ruled in favor of the City of Grant\u2019s Pass, determining that it is Constitutional for municipalities across the country to pass similar laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBackground: City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Is Homelessness a Condition or an Action?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
SCOTUS\u2019s Decision on Homelessness as a Condition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n