It's Not Illegal To Be Homeless — But It Might Be Impossible To Not Break The Law
The Supreme Court’s Grants Pass Ruling: Unraveling the Criminalization of Homelessness
For decades, cities have ticketed and jailed the homeless for existing in public spaces. A 2024 Supreme Court ruling has sparked debate, with many claiming it "criminalizes homelessness." Here’s the full picture behind this complex issue.
A Long History of Criminalizing Homelessness
Since the 18th century, U.S. laws have targeted the poor and unhoused through "vagrancy" statutes, criminalizing joblessness or loitering. These evolved into modern ordinances banning sitting, lying, panhandling, or storing belongings in public. A National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty survey noted a 69% rise in public camping bans and a 31% increase in sleeping bans from 2006 to 2016. Cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco enforce "sit-lie" laws, with fines up to $1,000 or jail time [15, 17, 22]. Today, over 653,000 Americans are homeless, a 12% rise from 2022, with nearly half unsheltered [49].
Supporters of these laws argue they maintain public safety and cleanliness, citing risks like fires (e.g., 700+ fires in L.A.’s Sepulveda Basin from 2023–2025, mostly linked to homeless encampments) [29]. Critics, including the National Homelessness Law Center, argue they trap people in poverty by creating criminal records that block housing and jobs, costing cities millions in enforcement without solving root causes like housing shortages [1, 6].
A Temporary Shield: Martin v. Boise (2018)
In 2018, the Ninth Circuit’s Martin v. Boise ruling offered a reprieve in nine Western states, home to ~50% of U.S. unsheltered homeless. The court ruled that punishing people for sleeping outdoors with blankets or cardboard violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" if no shelter is available, building on the 1962 Supreme Court case Robinson v. California, which barred criminalizing status like addiction [0, 17, 24].
Martin forced cities like Boise to pause arrests unless shelters were offered, but enforcement persisted via civil citations or "nuisance" laws targeting issues like fires [0, 3]. Critics called the ruling "unworkable" due to vague standards (e.g., proving "involuntary" homelessness), while the Obama and Biden administrations backed its limits, viewing criminalization as ineffective [19].
The 2024 Turning Point: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson overturned the Ninth Circuit’s Martin protections. Grants Pass, Oregon (pop. ~38,000, ~600 homeless), enforced bans on public camping and vehicle dwelling, with fines up to $300 or 30 days in jail. With only one 100-bed shelter (often full), plaintiffs argued this punished their need to sleep outdoors.
Majority Opinion (Justice Gorsuch)
The Court held that these laws target conduct (camping), not status (homelessness), and thus don’t violate the Eighth Amendment. The punishments—fines or short jail terms—aren’t "cruel" (no extreme harm) or "unusual" (common nationwide). Extending Robinson to "involuntary" acts risks a slippery slope (e.g., excusing public urination). Cities retain flexibility to regulate encampments for safety, and individuals can raise defenses like necessity [0, 8, 14].
Dissent (Justice Sotomayor)
The dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that "sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime." Punishing the unsheltered for sleeping outdoors without alternatives is cruel, ignoring root causes like poverty and housing shortages. Criminalization creates barriers to housing via fines and records [9, 19].
The ruling applies nationwide, empowering all cities to enforce such laws [18].
Why It’s Called "Criminalizing Homelessness"
The Grants Pass decision doesn’t create new crimes—those existed for decades—but removes a federal limit, amplifying enforcement without requiring shelter alternatives. Advocates like the National Alliance to End Homelessness call it a "setback," noting that criminalization costs $40,000+ per person annually while prolonging homelessness [1, 10, 13]. On X, users lament it as "forcing all unhoused to leave or face jail," tying it to broader stigma [9, 32, 38, 43].
The Full Picture: Impacts and Responses
| Aspect | Pre-Grants Pass (Martin Era) | Post-Grants Pass (2024–Present) |
|---|---|---|
| Enforcement | Limited in West if no shelter; civil citations common. | Full authority for fines/jail; 100+ new bans in 2024 (e.g., Florida’s statewide law, Washington’s 6 cities) [5, 16, 23]. |
| Examples | Boise halted arrests; L.A. paused sweeps during COVID. | CA Gov. Newsom’s July 2024 EO clears encampments; SF arrests up 50%+; Spokane enforces 1,000-ft school bans [7, 36, 38]. |
| Impacts on Homeless | Reduced arrests in some areas; property loss during sweeps. | More evictions, lost IDs; barriers to housing. Hits Native Americans (25% of unsheltered) and disabled hardest; prolongs homelessness [3, 52, 71]. |
| City Perspectives | Frustration over "encampment sprawl" (e.g., SF citing Martin). | Relief for "public safety" (e.g., Newsom: "No more excuses"); some hesitate due to costs. |
| Advocacy Pushback | DOJ briefs supporting limits. | "Housing Not Handcuffs Act" (2025 bill); ADA/4th Amendment lawsuits; Houston’s housing-first model (63% drop) [43, 53]. |
What’s Next?
The ruling shifts power to cities amid a crisis—California alone has 181,000 homeless, a third of the U.S. total [11]. Enforcement costs $30,000–$50,000 per person annually vs. $10,000–$20,000 for housing/services, yet encampments often just relocate [5, 13]. Real solutions lie in affordable housing (facing a 7-million-unit shortage) and services, not punishment [55]. As of October 2025, 40+ new bans are pending, but advocacy grows—Rochester DSA protests and a 2025 congressional bill signal resistance [23, 69].
The debate isn’t over. Cities face pressure to balance safety and compassion, while advocates push for systemic fixes over handcuffs. The unhoused, caught in the middle, face an uncertain future.
Comments
Post a Comment