Supreme Court rules that Eighth Amendment does not prevent enforcement of local camping bans, authorizing significant shift in local homelessness policies | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Until recently, local homelessness policies were determined by two controversial decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Martin vs Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 en Johnson vs. the City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2022) 50 F.4th 787.(1) The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson (2024) 603 U.S. ____, will likely change the policy approach of local jurisdictions to managing homelessness. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the city’s ban on camping and overnight camping on public lands.

In the background, in Martin, The Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s limitation against cruel and unusual punishment prohibited cities from imposing criminal penalties for violations of public camping ordinances when the number of homeless people exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds in a jurisdiction. In Janssenthe Ninth Circuit expanded on Martin and ruled that a city cannot enforce its camping ban or impose fines or civil penalties unless the city has enough shelter beds for its entire population. Since then, affected cities and states have widely criticized these two Ninth Circuit rulings, which effectively blocked enforcement of local ordinances that prohibit or regulate camping and sleeping outdoors.

In the Supreme Court ruling in Janssenthe Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s rulings and held that ordinances prohibiting camping, overnight camping, or sleeping outdoors do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment because these ordinances regulate “conduct” and “actions,” rather than “mere status.”

The Court focused on the practical implications of Martin And Janssenholding that the Ninth Circuit had created an unworkable and confusing test for evaluating public camping ordinances based on subjective and vague determinations of who is “involuntarily” homeless. The Court also criticized injunctions prohibiting enforcement of public camping ordinances, holding that such determinations are “public policy responses” that are best handled by local governments and the legislature (not the courts).

In doing so, the Court agreed with local jurisdictions that complained that the Ninth Circuit improperly limited available policy tools and “undermined” local efforts to address homelessness. The Court emphasized that local governments have “broad power” over the content and enforcement of their laws and should be given “broad discretion” and “flexibility” to address homelessness.

While the Court’s ruling authorizes enforcement of public camping ordinances, it does not grant unlimited power to local jurisdictions. The Court recognizes that public camping ordinances may still raise other constitutional concerns, including possible violations of the Due Process Clause. The Court further notes that local governments may not required to adopt public camping ordinances and may choose to limit such laws by imposing relevant restrictions as to time, place and manner.

Even with these limitations, the Court’s decision is likely to significantly alter the future of local homelessness policy, particularly throughout California. Local governments are now empowered to take more aggressive action to enforce existing ordinances (or enact new ordinances) that prohibit or otherwise regulate camping and parking on public property. Ordinances that contain relevant time, place, and manner restrictions (for example, regulating when, where, and how people sleep in public) are likely to be particularly well protected from constitutional challenges.

We will continue to closely monitor updates to local homelessness policies in response to this decision and will provide updates as they become available.

FOOTNOTES

(1) See previous article here.