Johnson v. Grants Pass: Incarceration Will Not Solve Our Homelessness Crisis

Today, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Johnson v. Grants Pass, a case presenting the question of whether a law criminalizing sleeping outdoors is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when no alternative shelter exists. The Court turned a blind eye to the precedents set in Martin v. Boise and United States v. Robinson, and ruled that the city of Grants Pass has the right to jail unhoused residents solely for the “crime” of sleeping outdoors.

In United States v. Robinson, the Court struck down a law criminalizing drug addiction and interpreted the Eighth Amendment to proscribe the criminalization of status. Today, the Court ignores that precedent, and permits Grants Pass and other cities to arrest individuals based on their status as homeless. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, argues that sleeping outdoors is an action, not a status, but, as Justice Sotomayor writes in her dissent, “The status of being homeless (lacking available shelter) is defined by the very behavior singled out for punishment (sleeping outside)… The Ordinances’ purpose, text, and enforcement confirm that they target status, not conduct. For someone with no available shelter, the only way to comply with the Ordinances is to leave Grants Pass altogether.” Johnson v. Grants Pass, 603 U. S. ____, at Dissent p. 13 (2024). Prison will not solve the country’s homelessness crisis; for cities like Grants Pass, it is simply the easiest way to push marginalized members of their community into the Oregon wilderness. Laws like these are not enacted to solve a problem, but rather to make it easier to ignore.

Equal Justice Under Law was founded on the principle that poverty is not a crime and that all people, regardless of wealth status, are entitled to the constitutional promise of equal protection. The motivation to fine, handcuff, and incarcerate the very people in our communities with the highest level of need will not end the homelessness crisis in Grants Pass, the state of Oregon, or the country at large. In fact, involvement with the criminal-legal system has been proven to only exacerbate the problems of homelessness by removing people from services, making it more difficult to find employment, barring individuals from federally funded housing, and more. Real solutions to homelessness will be found through increased funding, widespread services, productive policy change, and listening to and learning from our unhoused neighbors.

This case generated an incredible number of amicus briefs urging the Court not to uphold this law. Community partners, affected individuals, legal scholars, religious groups, and policy makers came out in droves to tell the Court that this country needs housing, not handcuffs. The majority stated in its opinion that “A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness.” Id. at p. 34. Yet, despite this recognition, the Court chose to ignore the collective wisdom that had been painstakingly presented to it, and determined that Grants Pass should be allowed to proceed in its efforts to jail and banish the town’s homeless population.

During the pendency of this case, one of the named plaintiffs, Debra Blake, passed away. Before her death she said this of the law: “I have been repeatedly told by Grants Pass police that I must ‘move along’ and that there is nowhere in Grants Pass that I can legally sit or rest. I have been repeatedly awakened by Grants Pass police while sleeping and told that I need to get up and move. I have been told by Grants Pass police that I should leave town. Because I have no choice but to live outside and have no place else to go, I have gotten tickets, fines and have been criminally prosecuted for being homeless.” Id. at Dissent p. 17. Today, the Court sent a message to people like Debra Blake, like Gloria Johnson, and hundreds of thousands of others. The Court’s decision obfuscates responsibility, diminishes humanity, and tells vulnerable and at-risk citizens that they are not wanted in our communities. It makes it a crime to engage in life-sustaining activities, and sets back the impressive work of advocates for and within the homeless community. It is up to us to respond differently. We must commit our legal, financial, and community resources to protecting our neighbors, expanding services, opening housing opportunities, and finding true solutions to the homelessness crisis in this country. Only then can we truly realize the constitutional promise of equal justice under law.