SCOTUS: No More Tent Takeovers—Cities Can Enforce Order!

Matt Gush /
Matt Gush /

In a decision that will ruffle some feathers, the Supreme Court has greenlit cities’ rights to enforce bans on public camping, overturning a previous ruling that had tied the hands of municipalities within the 9th Circuit. This move comes as a ray of hope for communities grappling with the escalating challenge of homelessness.

The 6-3 decision in the Grants Pass v. Johnson case marks a significant shift in legal interpretation. It grants local governments the autonomy to craft policies tailored to their specific needs in combating homelessness. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized the complexity of homelessness and the varied approaches needed to tackle it effectively.

“Homelessness is not a simple issue with straightforward solutions,” Gorsuch remarked, swaying at the notion that federal judges should dictate policy outcomes for such nuanced problems. His stance resonates with those advocating for local empowerment in addressing community issues.

The case originated when Gloria Johnson, a homeless individual, contested Grants Pass, Oregon’s ban on public camping, citing it as an unconstitutional punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This argument gained traction in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but faltered in the face of the Supreme Court’s broader constitutional interpretation.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent highlighted the humanitarian concerns, arguing against criminalizing the essential act of seeking shelter. Her dissent underscores a deep divide over the court’s role in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable populations.

The ruling’s practical implications are already stirring debates across the country, particularly in regions like Deschutes County, Oregon, where District Attorney Steve Gunnels has been vocal about the challenges posed by homelessness. Since the Martin v. Boise decision, which constrained cities’ abilities to regulate public encampments, Deschutes County has seen a sharp rise in both homelessness and associated criminal activities.

“Crime rates have surged alongside the increase in homelessness,” Gunnels pointed out, echoing concerns shared by many communities burdened with similar challenges. The unchecked growth of encampments has been linked to heightened incidents of drug trafficking and violent crimes, exacerbating public safety concerns.

For Gunnels and others, the Supreme Court’s decision offers hope. Gunnels believes communities can regain control over their safety and well-being by restoring local authority to manage public spaces.

The heart of the issue lies in the principle of federalism, which advocates for decentralized governance tailored to local needs and conditions. Justice Gorsuch emphasized the importance of allowing communities to determine their paths in addressing homelessness, citing Grants Pass’s relatively compassionate approach as an example.

“While Grants Pass chose a supportive approach to homelessness, other cities may adopt different strategies,” Gorsuch noted, underscoring the diversity of local responses needed to tackle a multifaceted issue like homelessness. This decision reaffirms the democratic right of communities to shape policies that reflect their values and priorities.

While the Supreme Court’s decision may not resolve the complexities of homelessness overnight, it does reaffirm the foundational principle of local governance and autonomy. By empowering communities to tailor policies to their unique circumstances, the ruling seeks to balance public safety and humanitarian concerns, setting the stage for a continued national dialogue on homelessness policy.

Subscribers receive daily email news and specials in accordance with our trusted Privacy Policy