Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Justices grapple with line-drawing but resist overturning important precedent in Eighth Amendment homelessness case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, a case in which the Court is considering whether city ordinances that punish the status of being homeless impose “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

At the core of this case is a simple idea: when a person lacks shelter and therefore has nowhere else to sleep but in public, penalizing them for doing so is the same thing as punishing them for being homeless. And the Supreme Court’s precedent recognizes that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does not allow the government to punish people for an involuntary status.

In defense of its ordinances, however, the City of Grants Pass has urged the Supreme Court to reverse or narrow that precedent, claiming that the Eighth Amendment bans only particular methods of painful physical punishment. That broad argument seemed to make little headway among most Justices during today’s argument. Indeed, while Justices grappled with difficult line-drawing questions, struggling with how courts can determine when a person truly lacks access to shelter, most appeared sympathetic to the central principle that cities may not punish a person for sleeping outside when that person has no alternative.

In this case, the courts below found that the plaintiffs were involuntarily homeless. And it is undisputed that in Grants Pass there are hundreds more homeless individuals than shelter beds available. The record also shows that the challenged ordinances were designed to force the city’s homeless residents to leave the city.

The Supreme Court should uphold the injunction preventing the city from enforcing these ordinances. As we showed in our amicus brief, the Eighth Amendment protects against disproportionate punishment that exceeds a person’s culpability, and any punishment is excessive when a person literally cannot avoid doing what the government has criminalized.

##

Resources:

Case page in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 23, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.