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
What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?
Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...
4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned
This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...
Other Articles
Court Ruling – No bonus for growing weed
COURT RULING – SORRY NO BONUS FOR GROWING CANNABISA marijuana farm worker is unable to succeed in his breach-of-contract lawsuit regarding a $100,000 bonus he claims to be owed for producing a healthy harvest of 1400 pounds of dry cannabis crop as the contract is...
Michigan Crime Victim Compensation
Michigan has a crime victim compensation fund. You can contact them using the various links on this page. This post is just to provide you with information. We do not provide any services for this topic.Crime Victims Victims of crime often face lasting repercussions...
The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan
These clauses protect property rights and maintain a balance between public needs and individual ownership The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions are pivotal components of property law, ensuring that private property is not seized by the...
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff
A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if thetotality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an...
Michigan Supreme Court – Money back for former homeowners
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties cannot retain surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales, a move poised to return millions to former homeowners. This ruling, stemming from the case Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County,...
Komorn Law Case Victories
Just some of our victoriesState / Federal Legal Defense With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems. KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550More...6-30-18 United States v Neece -...
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Summary People v Bosworth
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v. Bosworth Despite these efforts, the jury found the evidence against Bosworth compelling. In the case of People v. Christopher Mychael Bosworth, the Michigan Court of Appeals rendered a decision on July 18, 2024. Bosworth was...
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Analysis People v. Jackson
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v MICHAEL JACKSON Several critical legal issues emerged during the trial and subsequent appeals process including self defense claim and witness credibility. In a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals dated July 18, 2024,...
