The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday pertaining to a particularly consequential case regarding the criminalization of homelessness. The case under consideration has an Oregon town’s ordinances at its core, which prohibit homeless people from using items such as blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes as means of protection against the elements while sleeping within city boundaries. The city authorities have defended these ordinances, arguing they merely prohibit camping on public property by all. However, the challengers to the case assert that these ordinances effectively criminalize homelessness in the locale.
The implications of this Supreme Court ruling could extend nationally, as similar laws have become increasingly prevalent across many cities in the U.S. The ubiquity of such laws is in part a response to the significant growth in homelessness rates. According to recently released data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, over 600,000 people were found to be homeless on a single night in 2023.
The controversy under review stems from Grants Pass, a relatively small city in southwestern Oregon. The city suffers from a housing availability rate of around one percent. Consequently, the city has up to 600 individuals experiencing homelessness, the majority of whom find themselves in such circumstances involuntarily, according to a local non-profit that serves this demographic.
A significant precedent in this area of law is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling in Martin v. City of Boise, which established that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment precludes the criminalization of outdoor sitting or sleeping by homeless individuals who lack access to shelter.
The city argues that these punishments are neither cruel nor unusual, and maintain the Eighth Amendment does not regulate the substance of criminal offenses. Conversely, the challengers argue that the city’s ordinances contravene the constitution by punishing the city’s homeless residents for simply existing in the community without access to shelter.
This court decision promises to carry significant implications for legal perspectives on homelessness, as well as the policies surrounding and addressing this pervasive issue. The justices’ findings may alter not only the immediate circumstances in Grants Pass but potentially reverberate throughout cities across the United States.