The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday regarding whether cities have the authority to ban homeless individuals from sleeping outside, amid a nationwide surge in homelessness and limited shelter availability.
The case revolves around regulations implemented in Grants Pass, Oregon, which prohibited camping or the use of bedding on public property due to overcrowding in public parks with tents, blankets, and cardboard shelters. Violators of the ban face fines and potential imprisonment for repeated offenses.
Homeless advocates argue that such bans constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” violating the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, particularly when there are no alternative sleeping options available. The decision of the nine Supreme Court justices, expected by June 30, carries significant implications as the country grapples with a record 653,100 homeless individuals, according to a 2023 count.
According to Kelsi Corkran, representing the homeless, the ordinances effectively make it impossible for homeless individuals to reside in Grants Pass without facing fines and imprisonment, thereby shifting the city’s homelessness issue to neighboring jurisdictions.
In defense of Grants Pass, lawyer Theane Evangelis argued that the city’s penalties are not uncommon and serve to address public order concerns. “This court should reverse and end the Ninth Circuit’s failed experiment,” Evangelis told the justices, referring to the appellate court which in 2022 blocked the city’s regulations. Evangelis said the 2022 ruling had “fueled the spread of encampments while harming those it purports to protect.”
Grants Pass, population 40,000, does not have a municipal homeless shelter and instead relies on private charities. Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what the city would do if its appeal failed at the Supreme Court, Evangelis said its “hands will be tied.” “It will be forced to surrender its public spaces,” she added.
Roberts said that the city’s ban was not necessarily a criminalization of homeless “status” since this could change, and instead was about “conduct.” “You can remove the homeless status in an instant if you move to a shelter or situations otherwise change and of course it can be moved the other way as well if you’re kicked out of the shelter,” Roberts said.
Elena Kagan, one of three liberal justices on the conservative-dominated bench, reproached the city authorities for criminalizing a “biological necessity.” “You could say breathing is conduct too, but presumably, you would not think that it’s okay to criminalize breathing in public. And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public.”
In addition to poverty, drug addiction and a lack of shelter beds propelling homelessness, economists argue the country’s market-rate housing stock is woefully behind target – leaving the United States short of millions of homes needed to meet demand and increasing prices for existing housing.
