Grants Pass v. Johnson

Does criminalizing homelessness solve the issue? In 2009, six homeless individuals living in Boise sued the municipality over its anti-camping ordinances citing the 8th amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. In 2018, after a nine-year battle, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in Matin v. Boise, that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Officially outlawing anti-camping ordinances which impose criminal penalties for people experiencing homelessness without shelter options.  

The groundwork accomplished in Martin v. Boise is being threatened.  

This month the Supreme Court is hearing Grants Pass v. Johnson and is expected to make a ruling by the end of the month. While Martin v. Boise prohibits anti-camping ordinances with criminal penalties, there is no protection against those with civil penalties. Which is exactly what a city in Oregon has done. Grants Pass has issued anti-camping ordinances with civil penalties, which can compound into criminal penalties, and does not provide adequate shelter for their homeless population.  

Grants Pass faced a punitive class action lawsuit from three homeless people living in the city which was argued in front of the district court. The court decided to make a class for people experiencing homelessness as “involuntarily homeless,” classifying their housing status as a protected class. The district court then filed an injunction against anti-camping ordinances that would impact this protected class. Grants Pass appealed and the case was argued in the Supreme Court in April with a decision not yet announced. Their decision will impact homelessness response systems nationwide and we hope that the decision in Martin v. Boise will be held.  

Shawn Hays  

Founder & Executive Director