Punishing Poverty: Whose Responsibility?
The tension between federal oversight and local authority is particularly evident in the regulation of homelessness. In 2024, the United States Supreme Court held in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that the enforcement of generally applicable laws restricting camping on public property does not amount to the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, even if no shelter beds are available. This decision creates a formidable difference between a person’s status and their conduct. Furthermore, it shifts the responsibility of regulating homelessness to local power rather than to federal power.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution has a clause that disallows any “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” While the descriptions “cruel” and “unusual” are ambiguous, it is uniformly agreed upon that sleep is a biological necessity and thus prohibiting it for those who have nowhere else to go is undoubtedly cruel. In fact, in September of 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided on Martin v. City of Boise. The case involved six formerly or currently homeless citizens in the city of Boise, Idaho; they were seeking relief against the Camping Ordinance and Disorderly Conduct Ordinance because it was “violating” the Eighth Amendment by imposing criminal sanctions on homeless individuals sleeping outside, on public property, that had no other available shelter. In accordance with their suit, it was decided by the three-judge panel that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” In other words, the court accepted the argument of the plaintiffs and ruled that ordinances in the city of Boise violated the Eighth Amendment because it burdened homeless individuals - who could not “obtain shelter” - with criminal penalties.
The Grants Pass case began similarly to Martin's. The city of Grants Pass in Oregon, at the time of ruling, had around 38,000 inhabitants. Regardless of the exact number of unhoused people within Grants Pass (estimated to be from around 50 to 600), there were undeniably more individuals experiencing homelessness than the number of shelter beds available, forcing at least some of them to sleep outdoors on public property. Of course, at the root of the problem were multiple Grants Pass provisions that penalized this measure (which was obviously a last resort), notably through an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance. While the Grants Pass ordinances imposed only civil penalties (not criminal penalties, which were decided against in Martin v. City of Boise), they still had the potential to become criminal penalties if, for example, an homeless individual was unable to pay the required fine. A district court thus examined the case of the plaintiffs of “involuntarily unhoused persons” in the city of Grants Pass and concluded that, due to the lack of available shelter beds, the city’s anti-sleeping and camping ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment. A panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld this verdict and consequently denied rehearing. Thus, the Grants Pass case escalated to the Supreme Court over whether or not a city’s enforcement of local laws regarding public camping was against involuntarily homeless people on the grounds of “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the enforcement of generally applicable laws that restricted camping on public property did not constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is important to recognize that, historically, the amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause has concentrated on punishments following a conviction rather than on what behaviors can be criminalized. However, Robinson v. California (1962) serves as a powerful exception to this historical precedent as it made it unconstitutional to criminalize the status of drug addiction. The Court has, nonetheless, distinctly declined to stretch Robinson to also house involuntary acts that stem from a particular status. This is where the impactful distinction is made between status and conduct. Although sleeping outdoors on public property is a conduct that is caused by the status of being homeless, the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson has made it clear that it is lawful to punish such conduct because it pertains to the general public as well.
Additionally, expanding the scope of the Robinson holding would raise many questions that major courts (and the Eighth Amendment) are not fit to answer effectively. For example, Martin v. City of Boise reveals many smaller issues that have been faced not only by Boise but also by other cities regarding the widespread, “one size fits all” approach of trying to apply Robinson. What if one denies available shelter? What fits the definition of an “adequate” shelter? What is the correct way to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary homelessness? It becomes visible, as a result of these concerns, that judicial decisions regarding what behavior is regarded as unlawful are a much more ambiguous matter. Consequently, Grants Pass can be accurately interpreted as a broader shifting of the responsibility of managing homelessness from federal authority to individual localities. The majority in Grants Pass held this perspective and believed that the expansion of Martin was aiming to take policy-making power from local governments. In essence, this case marked the adoption of the concept that the federal courts need not micromanage local governments, especially within public policy decisions.
Grants Pass accordingly raises concerns about the civil liabilities of cities that enforce such ordinances without enough or adequate alternative housing. There are many ways to
ameliorate the widespread strains of homelessness; however, even with such bans in place, some cities—including San Diego, Los Angeles, and Boston—have begun to develop homeless courts which aim to augment the situation of unhoused persons. This could include efforts to provide those in need with stronger access to resources or the ability to remove their previous record.
Another manner in which cities can effectively take responsibility for and better the issue of homelessness is by implementing universal income programs. A program of this sort would essentially provide individuals with periodic cash payments regardless of income or living conditions. As a matter of fact, the APA states, “Results from Denver’s initial 1-year pilot program of 800 participants found that recipients reported improved feelings of financial well-being, and 45% of the original unhoused participants lived in their own house or apartment by the end of the pilot program.” Clearly, when cities and local authorities take responsibility for the issue of homelessness, there are countless ways to go about the problem and, eventually, solve it or make significant progress. This responsibility is already evidenced by a few states that have aimed to prioritize affordable housing and focus on homelessness as an issue.
Of course, it must also be acknowledged that even after Grants Pass, cities are not immune to lawsuits. For instance, the Eighth Amendment also prohibits excessive fines. If cities place large and unreasonable fines or add escalating ones, individuals can argue that the scale of the penalties is disproportionate to the “crime”. Furthermore, if individuals are fined without adequate notice or property (such as tents) is destroyed without a proper hearing, they may be able to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process clause. Finally, if the enforcement of bans on camping on public property affects certain people unfairly, such as certain racial groups or disabled individuals, they may claim their rights under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or even the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
After viewing the origins, results, and consequences of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, it becomes undoubtedly clear that local power must take accountability for the homelessness within its jurisdiction and use the power bestowed upon it by the Supreme Court to the advantage of any unhoused individuals. It is obvious that the broader guidelines set by the courts regarding status vs. conduct and “involuntarily” homeless individuals are ineffective when they reach local matters, as demonstrated by the confusion created through Martin v. City of Boise. Finally, it is important to recognize the limitations of the Eighth Amendment in determining what conduct should be criminalized and untangling the complex relationship between conduct caused by a certain, legally protected status.
Bibliography
"City of Grants Pass v. Johnson." Oyez. Accessed February 21, 2026.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175.
“Martin v. City of Boise, No. 15-35845 (9th Cir. 2018) :: Justia.” Justia. Accessed February 21, 2026.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-35845/15-35845-2018-09-04. html.
“U.S. Constitution - Eighth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” Constitution Annotated. Accessed February 21, 2026. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-8/.
Alexander , Apryl A. “Laws Banning Sleeping Outdoors Criminalize Homelessness.” Monitor on psychology, October 1, 2024.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/10/camping-bans-homeless.
Hall, Kinsey. “The U.S. Supreme Court Has Said That Cities May Criminalize the Homeless - but Should They?” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, July 29, 2024.
https://www.scu.edu/government-ethics/resources/the-us-supreme-court-has-said-that-citi es-may-criminalize-the-homeless---but-should-they/.