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
![4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Rich-protected-politicians-making-poor-choices-1.jpg)
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...
![SCOTUS Decision Gives Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/US-Supreme-Court-Building.jpg)
SCOTUS Decision Gives Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute
The decision underscored the principle that only activities that are essential and directly related to an employee's primary job responsibilities are subject to compensation. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Starbucks received a...
Other Articles
Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws
Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018....
SCOTUS Decision Gives Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute
The decision underscored the principle that only activities that are essential and directly related to an employee's primary job responsibilities are subject to compensation. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Starbucks received a...
People v. Bosworth – A Murder Conviction and Its Aftermath
Michigan Court of Appeals: People v. Bosworth The case took a dark turn during the early hours of August 3, 2020. Background and Basic Facts On June 15, 2020, Aquae Keyes was tragically murdered. Jakari Robinson, initially arrested for the murder, was later released...
Cannabis workers claimed employer violated labor laws
Allegedly had to put on company-issued personal protective equipment (“PPE”) (such as masks, hair nets, arm sleeves, gloves, scrubs, and protective shoes) before clocking in Close to 1.2 milion settlement for 134 cannabis workers alleging wage violations under federal...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Firearms)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...
Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION
FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.The...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle Information privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...