June 28, 2024
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175 – Decided June 28, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court held 6–3 that the constitutional prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not forbid low-level fines and jail terms for camping on public property.
“At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing th[e] causes [of homelessness] and devising those responses. It does not.”
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court
Background:
The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and unusual punishments” shall not be “inflicted.” In Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that it would be cruel and unusual to impose any punishment, no matter how small, for sleeping on public property if a person has “no access to alternative shelter.” Id. at 615. Punishing a person for such “‘an involuntary act or condition,’” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, would be tantamount to punishing the “status” of homelessness. Id. at 616-617.
Shortly after Martin, plaintiffs sued Grants Pass, a small city in Oregon. The plaintiffs claimed that Grants Pass’s prohibitions against camping on public property violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction exceeds the number of shelter beds. Applying Martin,the district court certified a class of “involuntarily homeless” people in Grants Pass and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment. After the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Grants Pass’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a 14-to-13 margin, with the dissenters joining five opinions criticizing Martin and its extension in this case. The Supreme Court then granted a cert petition to decide whether the Ninth Circuit has correctly interpreted the Eighth Amendment.
Issue:
Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
Court’s Holding:
Low-level fines and jail terms are not cruel and unusual punishments for public camping, even as applied to someone who is involuntarily homeless.
What It Means:
Gibson Dunn represented the City of Grants Pass as Petitioner.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 [email protected] |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 [email protected] |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 [email protected] |
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 [email protected] |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 [email protected] |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Litigation
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. +1 213.229.7804 [email protected] |
Theane Evangelis +1 213.229.7726 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Real Estate
Eric M. Feuerstein +1 212.351.2323 [email protected] |
Jesse Sharf +1 310.552.8512 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Land Use and Development
Mary G. Murphy +1 415.393.8257 [email protected] |
Benjamin Saltsman +1 213.229.7480 [email protected] |
This alert was prepared by associates Patrick Fuster, Daniel Adler, Lefteri Christos, and Karl Kaellenius.
© 2024 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.