Plain-English summary
Court says enforcing public-camping rules is not ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment
In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (23-175), the Supreme Court held that enforcing neutral, generally applicable laws against camping on public property does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Why this matters
The ruling affects how cities and counties can respond to unsheltered homelessness. It gives local governments clearer authority to enforce laws against camping in public spaces without automatic Eighth Amendment constraints, which will shape law enforcement, municipal policy, and efforts to balance public order with homelessness services.
Who may feel it
- People experiencing homelessness who sleep in public spaces
- City, county, and state governments and law enforcement agencies
- Advocates and service providers for people experiencing homelessness
- Residents and businesses in cities with visible encampments
Key questions
- Does the Eighth Amendment bar cities from enforcing general anti-camping laws against people who lack access to shelter?
- How should courts evaluate challenges to public-camping laws under the Eighth Amendment?