In its most significant ruling on homelessness in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided that cities have the authority to ban people from sleeping and camping in public areas. The justices, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, overturned lower court rulings that had previously deemed it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to punish individuals for sleeping outside if they had no alternative shelter.
Majority Opinion
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the complexity of homelessness, emphasizing that its causes are multifaceted. He stated that federal judges lack the “special competence” to dictate municipal homelessness policies. “The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he wrote.
Dissenting Opinion
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the ruling focuses solely on the needs of cities, neglecting the plight of the homeless. She pointed out that sleep is a biological necessity, and the decision forces homeless individuals to choose between staying awake or facing arrest. She criticized the decision for failing to consider the most vulnerable populations.
Impact on Western Localities
The ruling is a victory for the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which brought the case, and for dozens of Western localities grappling with high rates of homelessness. These cities had urged the Supreme Court to grant them more enforcement powers, arguing that lower court rulings hindered their efforts to maintain public spaces and ensure public safety.
Advocates’ Concerns
Homelessness advocates warn that the decision could exacerbate the hardships faced by the quarter of a million people living on streets, in parks, and in their cars. Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, questioned where homeless individuals are supposed to go if every community starts punishing them for their homelessness.
Regional and National Implications
Today’s ruling directly impacts the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California and eight other Western states where most of the U.S.’s homeless population resides. However, it is expected to influence homelessness policies across the country, as cities seek to understand the permissibility of similar regulations.
Public Safety and Shelter Challenges
Cities like Grants Pass argued that lower court rulings fueled the proliferation of homeless encampments, posing public health and safety risks. Although cities could restrict when and where people could sleep and even dismantle encampments, they first had to offer adequate shelter—a significant challenge given the shortage of shelter beds in many places. Cities also reported difficulties in compelling homeless individuals to use available shelters, especially those with restrictions on pets, drugs, and alcohol.
Legal Ambiguities and Practical Challenges
Critics argued that lower court rulings were ambiguous and unworkable, leading to numerous lawsuits over the specifics of what is permissible. Local officials claimed that managing homelessness requires balancing competing interests, a task better suited to local governments than the courts. Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison, who authored a legal brief on behalf of several cities, emphasized the need to respect public areas while caring for people and seeking long-term solutions.
Broader Issues of Housing and Homelessness
Attorneys for homeless individuals in Grants Pass contended that the city’s regulations effectively criminalized existence for those without homes. The city banned the use of stoves, sleeping bags, pillows, or other bedding in public spaces, while only offering shelter through a Christian mission with restrictive requirements.
Advocates like Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, which represented the plaintiffs, argued that punishing people for their homelessness—something beyond their control—is unjust. They also noted that fines and criminal records make it even harder for homeless individuals to secure housing.
Long-Term Solutions
Advocates stress that the Supreme Court’s decision does not address the underlying causes of rising homelessness: a severe housing shortage and unaffordable rents. They argue that the only real solution is to create more affordable housing, a process that will take years to implement.
COMMENTS