City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Background

The city of Grants Pass, Oregon, adopted laws banning camping and overnight parking on public property and escalating penalties for repeat violations. Two unhoused residents sued on behalf of others who lack shelter, and a district court enjoined enforcement by applying the Ninth Circuit’s Martin rule. A divided Ninth Circuit largely affirmed that injunction, and the city appealed to this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment bars enforcing general laws that forbid camping or sleeping in public. The Court said no, explaining the Eighth Amendment traditionally governs the kind of punishment imposed after conviction, not what conduct a government may criminalize. It treated Robinson as limited to laws that criminalize mere status and relied on Powell to reject extending Robinson to acts said to be “involuntary.” The Court therefore reversed the Ninth Circuit and allowed cities to enforce generally applicable camping rules.

Real world impact

The decision makes it easier for cities to enforce public-camping ordinances, fines, and short exclusion or jail penalties without those rules being struck down under the Eighth Amendment. The opinion notes other legal protections and avenues remain available: States can adopt their own rules, courts can still hear other constitutional claims (for example under due process or excessive-fines principles), and local governments retain options like outreach, shelters, and encampment management. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that punishing people for sleeping outside when they have no shelter is cruel and unusual and that criminalization harms vulnerable people; three Justices joined her view. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment and filed a separate opinion criticizing Robinson.