The Criminalization of Homelessness: Assessing the Eighth Amendment's Implications on Public Camping Law Enforcement

This past January, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024). This pivotal case accuses an Oregon City of “cruel and unusual punishment” in its enforcement of anti-homelessness laws. To bar individuals who are involuntarily homeless from public camping directly violates the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishments" within the 8th Amendment. Upholding this constitutional right is crucial in navigating how homeless people are treated under the law.

While intended to uphold order within the city, challenging the Municipal Code of Grants Pass, the subject of this case reveals its significant burden on Oregon's homeless population. The Code explicitly prohibits individuals from establishing campsites, defined as any location where bedding materials, stoves or fireplaces, or temporary living arrangements are set up on public sidewalks, streets, alleyways, door frames, or parks. Nonetheless, the ordinances further prevent homeless individuals from camping in public spaces, thereby limiting their ability to live in a city with minimal sheltering options. Even within the few shelter homes in Grant Pass, like the Fikso Family Center, residents must follow strict rules and regulations. These requirements limit who can stay in these homes, as residents must adhere to specific guidelines such as dressing and behaving according to their birth gender, attending religious services, and paying dues if they stay longer than 30 days. Given the limited housing options and the regulations set forth by the Municipal Code of Grants Pass, concerns regarding the legality of criminalizing public camping have emerged.

In response to the effects of the Municipal Code of Grant Pass, the original legal complaint was filed in October 2018 by Plaintiff Debra Blake who was represented by Oregon Law Center and claimed that Grants Pass was attempting to drive homeless people out. In Blake v. City of Grant Pass (2020), three homeless residents: Blake, Gloria Johnson, and John Logan, filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that these ordinances were unconstitutional and violated their 8th Amendment rights.

Looking to the prior Supreme Court case of Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the district court argued that the 8th amendment “nor excessive fines imposed” and the higher court’s statement that this phrase "limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, 'as punishment for some offense” was applicable. Presenting as a point of contention, the application of the Municipal Code of Grant Pass was thus claimed to be in direct violation of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th Amendment. Diving deeper into the court's interpretation of the 8th Amendment, the district court case also looked to United States v. Bajakajian (1998), where the Supreme Court held that a fine violates the excessiveness standard of the Eighth Amendment if the amount of the fine is "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense." In the case against Grant Pass, a fine of $295, which totaled up to $537.60 after collection fees are inevitably assessed, against a homeless person having to sleep outside because of a lack of available shelter was argued to be grossly disproportionate to the "gravity of the offense." Under these facts, the district court ruled to verify the class of “involuntary homeless” persons and granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the class, thereby issuing a permanent ruling forbidding the city ordinances from being enforced, within certain places and times, against the class members. Due to this outcome, the City chose to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment.

Examining prior legal decisions, such as the one in Martin v. City of Boise (2018), provides valuable insights into how courts have ruled in cases with similar circumstances. In their amended opinion, the panel, in this case, noted that ordinances such as these could not be enforced because, aside from shelters reaching capacity, individuals might be turned away for reasons unrelated to shelter availability, such as exceeding the shelter's limited hospitality stay duration or declining to participate in mandatory religious programs. They further asserted that as long as there's no viable option for indoor sleeping, the government cannot criminalize homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property under the false pretense of choice. Although the provisions in the Grants Pass Municipal Code only impose civil penalties in comparison, they still have the potential to escalate to criminal penalties. In ruling for plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit held that the 8th Amendment places certain restrictions on what the government can criminalize, and the similarity of the facts here should inform the decision in the City of Grants Pass.

Ruling in favor of the homeless individuals who brought the case, the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson can assert that the local government must ensure fair conditions and adequate space for everyone, rather than selectively displacing or criminalizing certain individuals. As a result, the Supreme Court should rule against a city's enforcement of public camping laws targeting involuntarily homeless individuals, deeming it a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment for those lacking access to housing. Considering an estimated 1,200 unhoused people are living in Grants Pass, it's evident that the criminalization of homelessness would inevitably lead to more individuals acquiring criminal records. These criminalizations not only fail to address the root causes of homelessness but also aggravate the challenges faced by this vulnerable population. By subjecting homeless individuals to legal penalties for solely seeking shelter in public spaces, these ordinances effectively punish individuals for their socioeconomic status, thereby breaching the protections enshrined in the 8th Amendment against "cruel and unusual punishments.”

Edited by Mohammad Hemeida