City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, ruling that Grants Pass's enforcement of public-camping laws does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court emphasized that the laws regulate actions, not the status of homelessness, and that federal judges should not dictate national homelessness policy. The decision underscores the role of states and local governments in addressing homelessness.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
The Court held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Cruel and Unusual Punishment is relevant to City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The case directly addresses whether the enforcement of public-camping laws against homeless individuals constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Eighth Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Pp. 541–561.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The Court discusses the limits of the Eighth Amendment in terms of criminalizing certain behaviors, which relates to substantive due process concerns about what behaviors can be criminalized.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court read the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause (in a way unprecedented in 1962) to impose a limit on what a State may criminalize.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The decision emphasizes federalism and the role of states and local governments in addressing homelessness, suggesting limits on federal judicial intervention.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Constitution's Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation's homelessness policy.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that support the summary and concepts above.
The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual.
Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.
