While this year’s Supreme Court cases have introduced significant changes with long-term impacts, one decision stands out for its immediate effect but has been overlooked in the news cycle: The City of Grants Pass V. Johnson, known as The Homeless Case.

The Court’s ruling allowing cities to address homelessness on public property is crucial for maintaining cleanliness and public safety in urban areas. This decision addresses the challenges posed by tent cities in cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Seattle, setting a precedent for municipalities nationwide. It marks a step forward in balancing the rights of the homeless with the greater good of ensuring public spaces remain accessible and safe for all.
The Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a significant case involving the rights of homeless individuals.

Balancing the Needs of the Homeless with Public Safety

The case originated when several homeless individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon, challenged the city’s ordinances that prohibited sleeping in public spaces. The plaintiffs argued that these ordinances effectively criminalized homelessness because they had no other place to sleep.

Legal Issues

The key legal issue was whether the city’s ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by punishing people for engaging in life-sustaining activities (such as sleeping) in public when they have no access to shelter.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the homeless individuals, affirming that the city’s ordinances were unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Court held that it is cruel and unusual punishment to enforce such ordinances against homeless individuals when no alternative shelter is available to them.

The Homeless Case and the Future of Public Space

Eighth Amendment

The decision emphasized that the Eighth Amendment protects individuals from being punished for circumstances beyond their control, such as homelessness.

Necessity of Shelter

The ruling underscored the importance of the availability of shelter in determining the constitutionality of such ordinances.

Broader Implications

The decision set a precedent for other municipalities, indicating that similar ordinances could be challenged if they do not provide alternatives for homeless individuals.


The ruling has significant implications for how cities across the United States address homelessness. It calls for municipalities to ensure that there are sufficient shelters or alternatives before penalizing individuals for sleeping in public spaces. This decision also highlights the need for systemic solutions to homelessness rather than punitive measures.

This case is piotal in shaping the legal landscape around homelessness and the responsibilities of municipalities to address the needs of their homeless populations compassionately and constitutionally.