Grants Pass V. Johnson: The History and Implications of Anti-Poverty Laws
Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPBIn May 2024, the Supreme Court sided with the City of Grants Pass in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case centered on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment as it applies to people experiencing homelessness, opening the door for the criminalization of poverty around the country. Currently, Oregon has the eighth-highest number of unhoused people in the United States. In Grants Pass alone, point-in-time estimates show that about 600 out of 40,000 residents are unhoused. Despite this, the city has no public homeless shelters and relies heavily on one single small, privately run, faith-based shelter. That one shelter also has high barriers members need to meet to be able to receive services such as attending mandatory weekly religious meetings rooted in the Christian faith despite their own religious belief or lack thereof. The plaintiffs were forcibly evicted onto the streets, leading to a forcible removal and placement into jails. Ed Johnson, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment to jail them for simply existing. The National Supreme Court disagreed.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The History:
The roots and implications of this case extend far beyond Grants Pass or even Oregon. Grants Pass v. Johnson builds on two landmark cases: California v. Robinson (1962) and Martin v. Boise (2018). Since the Supreme Court’s decision, roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such anti-poverty ordinances.
In California v. Robinson, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to criminalize a person solely for their “status” of drug addiction. While one could be prosecuted for illegal drug use, simply being an addict could not be punished. Decades later, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Martin v. Boise held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cities from imposing criminal penalties on unhoused individuals for sitting, sleeping, or lying in public if no alternative shelter is available.
How Does this Precedent Relate to Grants Pass?
Originally filed in 2018, Johnson v. Grants Pass found that citing or arresting people who have nowhere else to sleep constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The city’s practice of ticketing people for sleeping outdoors, despite the lack of available shelter, was deemed unconstitutional at the time. The current Supreme Court ruling reverses that decision, holding that ticketing or arresting unhoused people under these circumstances does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Johnson v. Grants Pass was the first time in nearly 40 years that the Supreme Court had to weigh in directly on the criminalization of poverty.
Does This Solve the Homelessness Crisis?
In short, no!
This ruling does not address the root causes of homelessness and will likely worsen the problem. By allowing cities to penalize people for sleeping outside when they have no alternatives, it perpetuates what researchers call the Homelessness-Jail Cycle. This cycle illustrates the pushing of unhoused individuals into frequent contact with law enforcement, fines, and jail time, which further destabilizes their lives.
Source: Janey Rountree, Nathan Hess, and Austin Lyke, “Health Conditions among Unsheltered Adults in the US,” California Policy Lab, October 6, 2019, https://www.capolicylab.org/health-
conditions-among-unsheltered-adults-in-the-u-s/.
Copyright: Urban Institute https://www.urban.org/features/five-charts-explain-homelessness-jail-cycle-and-how-break-it
According to the California Policy Lab, people experiencing unsheltered homelessness reported an average of 21 police contacts in six months — ten times more than people staying in shelters. They were also nine times more likely to spend at least one night in jail during that period. Frequent interactions with the justice system trap people in a cycle of jails, shelters, emergency rooms, and detox centers, rather than connecting them with stable housing, mental health care, or substance use treatment.
This cycle is compounded by the fact that formerly incarcerated people are nearly ten times more likely to become homeless than the general public, and with limited job opportunities, escaping this cycle becomes even harder. As University of Michigan law professor Maria Edmands, JD, notes:
“This ruling has made it easier for cities to take the harshest and, frankly, least sustainable approach to removing the most visible manifestations of our affordable housing crisis. This is not only wrong doctrinally but also, as a policy matter, short-sighted, ineffective, and cruel.”
Current Impact in Portland:
In May 2024, the Portland City Council unanimously passed an ordinance banning camping in public spaces. While the ordinance allows camping if no shelter beds are available, it heavily restricts what people can do while camping and allows penalties if they refuse to move when shelter is offered. Violators face a $100 fine and up to seven days in jail. However, Multnomah County Sheriff Morrissey O’Donnell, elected in 2022 for a four-year-term, has publicly stated that her office will not enforce these penalties, agreeing they worsen rather than solve the crisis.
Source: ACLU https://www.aclu.org/one-year-since-grants-pass-tracking-the-criminalization-of-homelessness
A case that started in Oregon however has national implications, a 2021 study found that 48 out of 50 states have at least one law criminalizing homelessness, and some states have as many as six.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such anti-poverty ordinances.
Four counties in California have imposed ordinances that place a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail if found guilty of their camping ban. In Elmara, New York it can be up to one year in jail.
What Should Be Done Instead?
Fines and incarceration will not solve homelessness in Portland or elsewhere. Real solutions require investing in affordable housing, crisis intervention services, and accessible addiction treatment. Rose Haven urges policymakers to prioritize prevention and care rather than further criminalizing poverty and homelessness.
Call To Action:
No one deserves to be punished for not having a place to sleep. It is crucial to keep an eye out for upcoming laws and regulations regarding anti-poverty and push our law makers to make the ethical choice. As Supreme Court Justice Soniya Sotmoyer stated in her dissenting argument.
“That responsibility is shared by those vulnerable populations, the States and cities in which they reside, and each and every one of us.”
To Learn More Visit:
https://newrepublic.com/post/183263/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court-homelessness-ruling-grants-pass
https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-HNH-State-Crim-Supplement.pdf
https://www.portland.gov/code/14/a50#toc–14a-50-140-camping-definitions-
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-175/#tab-opinion-4909853
https://freopp.org/oppblog/policy-implications-grants-pass/
About the Author:
Helia Attar is an international studies student at Boston College whose work centers on political violence, gender, and power in the Middle East. Born in Iran and raised in Portland, where she moved in 2012, she brings a transnational lens to her research and advocacy. She has conducted independent fieldwork sponsored by her university on women’s political representation in Kuwait and has years of experience in grassroots organizing and civil liberties advocacy. During the summer of 2025, she interns at Rose Haven, where she explores the intersection of economics, public policy, and care systems impacting Portland’s most vulnerable. Her writing bridges academic inquiry with lived experience, grounding policy analysis in the realities of those most affected. In her free time she loves to spend time outdoors and explore the Pacific North West.
(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)