The Supreme Court upheld an Oregon city’s laws banning homeless residents from sleeping outdoors, ruling that these laws do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This decision, made by a 6-3 vote split along ideological lines, is likely to have far-reaching implications beyond Oregon, potentially altering how cities and states in the West address homelessness. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority decision, arguing that it leaves society’s most vulnerable individuals with fewer protections.
The laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, penalize sleeping and camping in public places, including sidewalks, streets, and city parks. Justices Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority, while Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern that the decision would punish people for being homeless. The dispute originated when a group of homeless residents sued Grants Pass, challenging the ordinances and claiming that the local laws essentially criminalized homelessness.
The debate over homelessness was reflected during oral arguments, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggesting that lawmakers, cities, and states should handle the issue, rather than the Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan, on the other hand, fiercely questioned the city’s argument that homelessness should not be protected by the Constitution, highlighting the complexity and underlying ethical questions surrounding the regulation of homelessness. This ruling marks a significant development in how cities and states navigate the growing crisis of homelessness, particularly in the Western United States.