The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an Oregon law that bans people from sleeping outdoors in all circumstances. The decision, released Friday at the tail end of the court’s term, will allow cities and states to crack down harder on homeless camps.
The 6-3 decision fell along ideological lines, with the court’s conservative majority finding the Oregon law constitutional.
The case dates back to a 2018 class-action lawsuit filed by homeless people against the city of Grants Pass, Oregon. The individuals had faced criminal charges and fines for camping outside. There was only one shelter in the area, a Christian facility that required residents to attend church. The unhoused people who brought the suit argued that the city’s camping ban was cruel and unusual punishment—and both a federal judge and an appeals court ruled in their favor.
These initial rulings in favor of the homeless residents were based on an earlier 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Martin v. Boise, which found that cities can’t punish people for sleeping outside if there’s nowhere else to go.
Unsatisfied with the outcome, the city of Grants Pass brought its appeal to the highest court of the land. An unusual coalition of conservative and liberal government leaders from across the U.S.—including Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed—urged the Supreme Court to take the case. Newsom argued that court rulings preventing local governments from clearing dangerous encampments that have proliferated on their streets have “tied the hands” of officials like him.
The governor celebrated the decision Friday.
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets,” Newsom said in a statement Friday. He said the decision eliminates “legal ambiguities” around the responsibilities of local governments.
“The state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives,” Newsom said.
Some housing and homelessness advocacy groups say they are disappointed in Newsom and the legislature for this year’s budget, which they say “falls short” of providing ongoing funds for homelessness services and affordable housing.
What might the Grants Pass decision mean for Oakland?
Oakland leaders have been silent in the months leading up to the Supreme Court decision, declining to say whether they’d seek to change Oakland laws if given more leeway to shut down camps.
The city of Oakland has closed over 500 homeless camps in the past few years. A controversial local policy already declares most of Oakland off-limits to encampments. But the policy, based on Martin v. Boise and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, says nobody can be arrested for simply living outdoors and requires Oakland to offer shelter to all residents of any camp it’s clearing.
City homelessness staffers say they often have to delay clearing encampments because there’s not enough shelter available. The city is home to around 5,500 unhoused people but only 1,300 shelter beds.
When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Grants Pass case in April, the discussion centered on whether the Oregon law makes it a crime to be homeless, or whether it simply criminalizes behavior—sleeping in public. Lawyers for the city argued that the camping ban applies to everyone, not targeting homeless people in particular.
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed. “Sleeping is a biological necessity,” she said. “And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public…We only come up with this problem for a person who is homeless, who has the status of homelessness.”
“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion?” added Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Conservative justices said these questions were matters of policy, more appropriately handled by local governments and states.
In her dissent Friday, Sotomayor called the decision “unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
Advocates for homeless people in the Bay Area have made similar comments in response to Friday’s news.
“Today, the Supreme Court’s decision will allow state and local governments to make it a crime for people experiencing homelessness to rest in public when they have nowhere else to go—despite the fact that sleeping and resting are basic human needs,” said Dr. Margot Kushel, director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, in a statement. “This is an extreme decision that will have a dangerous and negative impact on people experiencing homelessness and do nothing to end homelessness.”
Advocates blasting the decision said criminalizing homelessness disproportionately impacts residents of color, who’ve faced systemic barriers to securing housing. Black residents make up 60% of Oakland’s homeless population but only 20% of the city overall.
Others who’ve long been pushing Oakland to more aggressively sweep homeless camps applauded the court’s decision.
“Thao, Bas, Fife & Co. have hidden behind this excuse for years, but SCOTUS has now ripped off the fig leaf,” wrote one such activist, Steve Heimoff, in his email newsletter. “We’ll be demanding the city get rid of every tent in every park in the city!!!”
