The Fight for Dignity: America’s Dehumanization of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness

This past June, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision of Grants Pass v. Jackson (2024), which questioned whether city ordinances surrounding and banning encampments were unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Court came back with a 6-3 decision of “No,” allowing for future governments to place encampment restrictions and regulations that specifically target homeless populations in their areas [1]. 

Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority, stating that the Court understood the complexities of homelessness and how it could be out of the individual’s control. He reasons it is why a statute punishing the status of being homeless would be unconstitutional. However, because these ordinances did not directly point out the homeless population, and instead, as the majority explains it, focused on anyone who camps in public areas, it is constitutional. Under this interpretation, the precedent case Robinson v. California (1962) does not apply because it criminalizes the conduct, not the status. These ordinances were never meant to attack the homeless population and incarcerate them but rather be used as an “encouraging tool” for homeless individuals to accept assistance while keeping public areas clean and safe. Cities needed these ordinances because they were the last solution to solving homelessness in their area [2]. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of Grants Pass, subjecting homeless individuals nationwide to penalties for their struggles. 

This decision also overturned the 9th Circuit Court ruling of Martin v. Boise (2019), which was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. The circuit court ruled in Martin that cities could not enforce anti-camping ordinances, specific to homeless populations, unless they had enough homeless shelter beds for the number of unhoused in the area. According to the majority, this decision made it even more difficult to solve the homelessness crisis for Western cities since the option of city ordinances was ruled unconstitutional [3]. 

However, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent offers a different perspective that focuses on the individuals surrounding the case: the homeless population. The ordinances were created to apply specifically to homeless individuals, focusing on how anti-camping ordinances targeted any bedding necessary to keep them warm during sleep. This case was not about how to solve homelessness, but rather, to rule if criminalizing sleeping in public places when there is no shelter was unconstitutional. Sotomayor also disagrees about the application, or rather, nonapplication of Robinson in this case. Using Robinson, one could clearly tell that the ordinances were meant to target homelessness and regard it a crime, with the only difference between the two being that Robinson did it upright and Grants Pass was punishing the result of being homeless rather than outright punishing the individual for homelessness [4]. 

The effects of Grants Pass were immediate. Four days after the ruling, Manchester, New Hampshire, voted to remove the “sunset to sunrise” clause on their camping ban [5]. It essentially allowed for enforcement of their anti-camping ordinance at any time of the day, even when the homeless individual was not using the encampment to sleep.  In July, California Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-1-24 [6], effectively ordering state agencies to remove all homeless encampments and store all homeless individuals’ belongings for 60 days before returning them. Cities and states across the country have reacted quickly to the decision, using their newfound power to criminalize and evict their unhoused population. 

Criminalizing homelessness does not, however, solve the issue. In August, Morton, Illinois’s Board of Trustees met to adopt Chapter 8-19 of their municipal code to criminalize encampments and fine individuals upwards of $75 for violating the code [7]. Having to pay fines only adds another burden to homeless individuals that most cannot even pay, leaving them in debt while searching for housing or employment. Historically, Bremerton, Washington’s anti-camping ordinance required that an individual would not be charged with a misdemeanor if there was no shelter space.However, after Grants Pass, the ordinance was amended to allow law enforcement to charge any homeless individual with a misdemeanor, regardless of shelter availability [8]. Not only does this charge an individual with a crime that is out of their control, but it also makes it more difficult for the individual to receive support due to regulations concerning criminal records or to find employment due to background checks. Cities focus on criminalization instead of treating the crisis, giving attention to discarding homeless individuals instead of making their goal to eliminate homelessness. 

This case has only made it simpler for temporary “solutions.” As mentioned in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, ordinances against encampments will not solve the homelessness crisis, but make it worse [9]. According to the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, “criminalization creates a costly revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back” [10]. By increasing the incarcerated and homeless population, these ordinances will shift attention away from finding permanent solutions to the issue. 

However, solutions do not even seem to be the purpose of some of these city ordinances. In Grants Pass, Oregon, where this all started, city council member Lily Morgan said, “the point is to make [the homeless] uncomfortable enough for them in [Grants Pass] so they will want to move down the road” [11]. It is clear that society has dehumanized unhoused individuals enough. Governments are struggling to find a solution to homelessness because many are not even looking for one. The extreme lack of proper empathy and support will only continue to fester until it attacks other vulnerable communities in society.

This case has been decided, but its effects will be everlasting. With a cycle of homelessness and incarceration, and governments focusing on pushing homeless individuals out of borders instead of providing resources, the homeless population will continue to grow exponentially. Local and state governments were tested with this case, but it seems they failed: many governments chose an “out of sight, out of mind” approach instead of searching for solutions to this intensifying crisis. 

The short-term responses to the Court’s ruling have made society’s flaws clear. However, if governments adjust policies from criminalization to rehabilitation, the long-term effects of Grants Pass v. Oregon (2024) can shift to focus on a solution to the homelessness crisis, instead of adding to it.

Sources:

1. Grants Pass v. Jackson 603 U.S. _____ (2024)
2.  Id. 
3. Id.
4.  Id.
5. Andrew Sylvia, Alderman quickly approve amendment to anti-camping ordinance, Manchester Ink Link (Jul. 3, 2024), https://manchester.inklink.news/aldermen-quickly-approve-amendment-to-anti-camping-ordinance/
6. Executive Department State of California, Executive Order N-1-24
7. MORTON, IL., MORTON MUNICIPAL CODE CH. 8, § 19 (2024)
8. Elisha Meyer, Shelter Stipulation struck from Bremerton’s camping code, Kitsap Daily News (Aug. 13, 2024), https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/news/shelter-stipulation-struck-from-bremertons-camping-code/#:~:text=Shelter stipulation struck from Bremerton's,said in a brief statement.
9. Supra. Grants Pass 603 U.S. ___
10. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness: Searching Out Solutions, Constructive Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness (Jun., 2011)
11.  Jeremiah Hayden, Grants Pass v. Johnson: Here's what led to key homelessness case before high court, Oregon Public Broadcasting (Apr. 4, 2024) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/04/grants-pass-oregon-homeless-parks-josephine-county-public-spaces-camping-shelter/