Civil and Human Rights

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court is considering whether city ordinances that punish the status of being homeless impose “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Case Summary

Attempting to get rid of its homeless residents, the City of Grants Pass began punishing them for being in public with as little as a blanket to protect themselves from the elements. Among other things, the city’s ordinances make it illegal to be found on public property with any “material used for bedding purposes.” There is no exception for people who have no shelter. That’s because the city’s goal, as one official explained, is to make it “uncomfortable enough” for homeless people to remain in the city that they will be forced to go elsewhere. The Ninth Circuit held that enforcing the ordinances against people who do not have access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

CAC filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court explaining why Grants Pass’s ordinances violate the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment. As we show, the Amendment protects against disproportionate punishment that exceeds an offender’s culpability. And inflicting any punishment is disproportionate when people literally have no choice but to commit a prohibited offense.

The principle that punishment must be proportionate to an offense dates back to the Anglo-Saxon era in England and was eventually enshrined in the Magna Carta. Centuries later, this common law safeguard was reasserted in the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, from which the Eighth Amendment was borrowed almost verbatim. The English version of this provision reaffirmed the proportionality rule in response to notorious criminal sentences that were outlandishly severe in relation to the crimes at issue. By deliberately adopting the language of the English provision wholesale, the American Framers incorporated into the Constitution the same protection from disproportionate punishment.

As we further explain, even if the Framers had drafted the Eighth Amendment from scratch, its plain text prohibits punishment that is out of proportion to a person’s culpability. Founding-era dictionaries defined “cruel” and “cruelty” as exceeding standards of restraint and afflicting people “without necessity.” The word “unusual” had the same meaning as today: “not common.” The Founding generation read these two words in the Eighth Amendment as a unit, expressing a single idea: punishment that is uncommonly cruel. That reading aligns the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause with the Eighth Amendment’s other limits on “excessive” fines and bail. Text and history therefore corroborate what Supreme Court precedent has long recognized: the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment that exceeds the severity of a crime.

Finally, as precedent also recognizes, inflicting any punishment is unconstitutionally excessive when a person literally cannot avoid conduct that the government has made illegal. Nothing prevents Grants Pass from enforcing its ordinances as a general matter, but it may not punish people who physically cannot avoid violating those ordinances because they have nowhere else to go. The Supreme Court should affirm the Ninth Circuit and hold that Grants Pass’s attempt to banish its homeless residents violates the Eighth Amendment.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle