Does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment
The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that restrict individuals experiencing homelessness from utilizing blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes as protective measures against the elements while sleeping within city limits. In a decision reached by a 6-3 vote, the justices sided with the city of Grants Pass, asserting that the ordinances serve to prohibit camping on public property for all individuals and do not infringe upon the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”
Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
In Grants Pass, a city with a population of just under 40,000, as many as 600 individuals experience homelessness on any given night, prompting the city’s decision in 2013 to intensify the enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes for sleeping within city limits.
Violators are subject to significant fines starting at 295 dollars, which can increase to 537.60 dollars if not paid promptly. Receiving two citations may result in local police issuing a ban from city property and anyone who disregards this order can be charged with criminal trespass, which may lead to penalties of up to 30 days imprisonment and a fine of 1250 dollars.
Holding: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 28, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices uphold laws targeting homelessness with criminal penalties, SCOTUS blog (Jun. 28, 2024, 1:48 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-uphold-laws-targeting-homelessness-with-criminal-penalties/
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by individuals who use marijuana—even in states where it’s legal. The decision could reshape how drug...
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Maryland Gun Permit Case
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. While the Court offered no explanation, the decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s...
Other Articles
What does Nolle Prosequi mean?
What does Nolle Prosequi mean? Fatal Flaw In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost...
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his fourteen‑year‑old daughter. The Court held that although one evidentiary error occurred, it was...
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects...
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...
Michigan House Bill Proposes 32% Tax on Internet Devices for Kids
Taxed Again..? They're working on it.A newly introduced Michigan House bill would impose a 32% excise tax on smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, and other internet‑connected devices marketed to or primarily used by minors. Lawmakers backing the proposal argue the...
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
