The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oregon city's anti-camping ordinances Friday against a challenge from homeless residents who alleged the laws penalized them for being homeless.

Oregon Anti Camping Backing : Background of the Case

The two anti-camping ordinances enacted by Grants Pass, Oregon, came under scrutiny after a class of homeless residents argued that the ordinances effectively banned homelessness, violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The city contended that its laws only prohibit the act of camping in public spaces, rather than targeting the status of homelessness.

Counsel for the Grants Pass residents argued on April 22 that the ordinances in question implicate high court precedent in Robinson v. California, which struck down a law criminalizing the status of addiction. They asserted that under the 1962 ruling, any status-based crimes amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Shelter Shortages and Harsh Conditions

Grants Pass currently lacks sufficient shelter beds for its entire homeless population, estimated at around 600 individuals, with fewer than 100 beds operated by a religious organization. The severe Oregon weather conditions force people without shelter to use blankets or face hypothermia, placing them in violation of the anti-camping ordinances.

Homeless residents face increasing fines and eventually a 30-day jail stay under current laws. The class accused Grants Pass of using the ordinances to expel the unhoused population entirely.

Oregon Anti Camping Backing : Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the city argued that the laws merely regulate conduct and apply equally to all residents, irrespective of their housing status. Grants Pass maintained that the low-level fines and short jail stays do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, individuals cited under anti-camping laws who are forced outside due to a lack of shelter can raise a necessity defense under state law, the city's counsel argued before the high court.

Ninth Circuit Ruling

In 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court injunction barring enforcement of two anti-camping ordinances while reversing a portion of the injunction that barred enforcement of a ban on sleeping on sidewalks, streets, alleys, or in doorways.

Oregon Anti Camping Backing : National Attention and Implications

Advocacy organizations nationwide supported the class, arguing that the ordinances in Grants Pass and similar laws elsewhere effectively criminalize homelessness. Conversely, dozens of municipal and state governments backed Grants Pass, contending that a decision against the ordinances would undermine local governments' ability to address the housing and homelessness crisis.

Legal Representation

Grants Pass is represented by Aaron P. Hisel of Capitol Legal Services and Jonathan C. Bond, Daniel R. Adler, Samuel Eckman, Theane Evangelis, Patrick J. Fuster, and Bradley J. Hamburger of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The class of homeless residents is represented by Edward Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, Walter Fonseca of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, and Kelsi Brown Corkran, Shelby Calambokidis, Alexandra Lichtenstein, Joseph Mead, and William Powell of Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Oregon Anti Camping Backing : Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Oregon's anti-camping ordinances marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over how to address homelessness while balancing public space regulations. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by both homeless individuals and municipalities striving to manage public spaces amid a national housing crisis.