Grants Pass versus Oregon

Extracted Attributes

• Deciding Body

  Supreme Court of the United States

• Docket Number

  23-175

• Ruling Outcome

  Held that municipal bans on public camping do not violate the Eighth Amendment, allowing cities to ticket or arrest individuals sleeping outside

• Key Legal Question

  Whether municipal ordinances criminalizing public sleeping and camping violate the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause

• Official Case Name

  City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

Timeline

• The Oregon Law Center files a class-action lawsuit against the city of Grants Pass on behalf of Debra Blake, challenging the city's anti-camping ordinances. (Source: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia)

  2018-10-01

• The United States District Court for the District of Oregon grants the motion for class certification. (Source: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia)

  2019-08-07

• The Oregon District Court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that civil citations for sleeping outside violate the Constitution. (Source: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia)

  2020-07-22

• The Supreme Court of the United States hears oral arguments for City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. (Source: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia)

  2024-04-22

• The Supreme Court issues its final decision, ruling 6-3 that municipal bans on public sleeping do not violate the Eighth Amendment. (Source: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia)

  2024-06-28

Grants Pass, Oregon

Grants Pass is a city in and the county seat of Josephine County, Oregon, United States. The city is located on Interstate 5, northwest of Medford, along the Rogue River. The population is 39,194 according to the 2020 census, making it the 15th most populous city in Oregon.

Web Search Results

• [PDF] 23-175 City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (06/28/2024) - Supreme Court

  Pass, a city of 38,000 people in southern Oregon, adopted three ordinances (Ordinances) that effectively make it unlawful to sleep anywhere in public, including in your car, at any time, with as little as a blanket or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. The Ordinances prohibit “[c]amping” on “any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public right of way, park, bench, or any other publicly-owned property or under any bridge or viaduct.” Grants Pass, Ore. Municipal Code §5.61.030 (2024). A “[c]ampsite” is defined as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bed­ ding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or maintained for the purposes of maintaining a temporary place to live.” §5.61.010(B). Relevant here, the definition of “campsite” includes sleeping in “any [...] Brief 27–28. C The case before us arises from a Martin injunction issued against the city of Grants Pass. Located on the banks of the Rogue River in southwestern Oregon, the city is home to roughly 38,000 people. Among them are an estimated 600 individuals who experience homelessness on a given day. 11 Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) Opinion of the Court 72 F. 4th, at 874; App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a–168a; 212a– 213a. Like many American cities, Grants Pass has laws re­ stricting camping in public spaces. Three are relevant here. The first prohibits sleeping “on public sidewalks, streets, or alleyways.” Grants Pass Municipal Code §5.61.020(A) (2023); App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a. The second prohibits “[c]amping” on public property. §5.61.030; App. to Pet. for Cert. 222a (boldface deleted). [...] It may be that defense extends to charges for illegal camping when it comes to those with nowhere else to go. See State v. Barrett, 302 Ore. App. 23, 28, 460 P. 3d 93, 96 (2020) (citing Ore. Rev. Stat. §161.200). Insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses also may be available in many jurisdictions. See Powell, 392 U. S., at 536. States and cities are free as well to add addi­ tional substantive protections. Since this litigation began, for example, Oregon itself has adopted a law specifically ad­ dressing how far its municipalities may go in regulating public camping. See, e.g., Ore. Rev. Stat. §195.530(2) (2023). For that matter, nothing in today’s decision pre­ vents States, cities, and counties from going a step further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether.

• City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipedia

  | City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | | --- | | Supreme Court of the United States | | | Argued April 22, 2024 Decided June 28, 2024 | | | Full case name | City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated | | Docket no. | 23-175 | | Citations | 603 U.S. 520 (more) | | Argument | Oral argument | | Decision | Opinion | | Case history | | | Prior | Motion for class certification granted, 1:18-cv-01823-CL (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2019) Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement granted in part and denied in part, 1:18-cv-01823-CL (D. Or. Jul. 22, 2020) Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 50 F.4th 787 (9th Cir. 2022) Petition for rehearing en banc denied, 72 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023) | | Questions presented | | [...] ## Oregon District Court ruling The Oregon Law Center, which supports low-income Oregonians, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Debra Blake (1959–2021) in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in October 2018. At the time of filing, Blake had been homeless in Grants Pass, Oregon, between eight and ten years, occasionally entering temporary transitional housing. Grants Pass had levied civil fines against violators of anti-camping, anti-sleeping, and parking exclusion ordinances. The city imposed criminal penalties of trespassing on repeat violators who continued to reside on public land. [...] The dissent concludes by recognizing four remaining options for homeless people to contest the anti-camping ordinance. First, Oregon state law likely preempts Grants Pass's local ordinance, restraining the town's police from punishing the act of sleeping. Second, the majority's decision remands "Remand (court procedure)") the case back to the Ninth Circuit to assess whether the ordinance's fines violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. Third, homeless people could challenge the ordinance under the Due Process Clause by citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County") (1974), which overturned a state law limiting non-emergency medical care based on the length of one's residency for impermissibly denying the basic necessities of life. Fourth, since Trop v. Dulles (1958) held that

• Johnson v. Grants Pass

  Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds. Grants Pass, like many cities in America, is thousands of housing units short of what is needed. That shortfall will not be solved by putting more people in jail or issuing more tickets. The solution to homelessness is safe, decent, and affordable housing for everybody. ## Watch the Post-Decision Organizing Call ## Frequently Asked Questions [...] Signed in as: filler@godaddy.com Home Take Action Resources + Court Briefs + Rally + About Criminalization + Criminalization Tracker Subscribe Donate Account My Account Sign out Sign In My Account # Johnson v. Grants Pass Johnson v. Grants PassJohnson v. Grants PassJohnson v. Grants Pass The Supreme Court case that made it a crime to sleep outside. FAQ ## About the Case On April 22nd 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass. On June 28th, a decision was announced that cities and states can arrest people for sleeping outside, even when there are no safe alternatives. [...] Studies and experience show that criminalizing homelessness only leads to more homelessness. Prohibiting acts of human survival, such as sleeping outside, is a waste of taxpayer money and actually makes it harder to connect people with housing. This ruling is a clear sign that the Supreme Court, as well as many elected officials across the political spectrum, would rather side with billionaires and make homelessness worse than simply ensure everyone is safely housed.

• Exploring the Implications of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson :: League of Oregon Cities

  Those in favor of upholding the Grants Pass case argued that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing someone for their “involuntary” status, such as homelessness, deeming it cruel and unusual. The opposing side contended that the Eighth Amendment only addresses the type of punishment, not the status of the person being punished. [...] What’s Next in Oregon? Before the Supreme Court ruled, the Ninth Circuit prohibited all enforcement of anti-camping ordinances against “involuntary” homeless persons when there was no “adequate” shelter. For practical purposes, this vague rule left local officials with no enforceable rules at all. Now, after the Supreme Court’s decision, Oregon is left with a less restrictive statute. HB 3115 requires camping regulations to be reasonable as to time, place, and manner. For practical purposes, that means: Reasonable time restrictions: Allow a homeless person to shelter during traditional sleeping hours. The middle ground would be from sundown to sunrise. A 24-hour prohibition on camping will be deemed unreasonable. [...] Johnson v. Grants Pass prior to reaching the Supreme Court Within weeks of Martin v. Boise being decided, the same lawyers filed Johnson v. Grants Pass in the U.S. District Court for Oregon. Johnson expanded upon Martin. While Martin only prohibited issuing criminal fines to the homeless, Johnson held that even issuing civil citations to the homeless was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated the U.S. Constitution.

• City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (23-175) | SCOTUSblog

  Apr 10, 2024 Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 6, 2024. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. Apr 12, 2024 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. Apr 12, 2024 Reply of petitioner City of Grants Pass filed. (Distributed) Apr 22, 2024 Argued. For petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C. [...] Feb 16, 2024 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 22, 2024. Feb 21, 2024 Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Feb 26, 2024 Brief of petitioner City of Grants Pass filed.Feb 26, 2024 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) Feb 26, 2024 Amicus brief of County of Orange, California not accepted for filing. (March 4, 2024--Corrected verison to be submitted.) Feb 26, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of County of Orange, California filed (March 8, 2024).Feb 27, 2024 Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter W. Low and Joel S. Johnson supporting neither party filed. Feb 29, 2024 Amicus brief of Venice Stakeholders Association not accepted for filing. (March 05, 2024--Corrected verison to be submitted.) [...] Mar 4, 2024 Brief amici curiae of League of Oregon Cities et al. (March 11, 2024) filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of neither party filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of City of San Clemente filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Brentwood Community Council filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America, et al. filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amici curiae of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco et al. filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of California in support of neither party filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amici curiae of Manhattan Institute, Stephen Eide, and Judge Glock filed.Mar 4, 2024 Brief amicus curiae of City of Chico filed.Mar 4, 2024