Across the country, communities are grappling with the growing crisis of homelessness. Rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and a lack of affordable housing options have left thousands without a place to call home. Instead of addressing the root causes, many cities have turned to punitive measures, such as banning people from sleeping in public spaces without offering alternatives.
Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in. In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Court ruled on whether cities can criminalize unsheltered homelessness without providing adequate shelter options. Their decision allows cities to penalize individuals for sleeping outside, even when there are no safe alternatives. This ruling has far-reaching implications for people experiencing homelessness and the communities working to support them.
The Landmark Case: Grants Pass v. Johnson
At the heart of Grants Pass v. Johnson was a question that has divided communities and courts for years: Can a city punish people for sleeping outside when no shelter is available? The Supreme Court homelessness case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, a small city that, like many others, struggled to address a growing unhoused population. In an attempt to curb visible homelessness, the city enacted ordinances that effectively criminalized sleeping in public spaces, even for individuals who had nowhere else to go. People experiencing homelessness were ticketed, fined, and even threatened with jail time simply for trying to survive.
The Grants Pass homeless population challenged these policies in court, arguing that penalizing them for sleeping outside when no adequate shelter was available violated their constitutional rights. They pointed to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and argued that punishing individuals for something they had no choice but to do was inherently unjust. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that such enforcement was unconstitutional. But the city of Grants Pass appealed, setting the stage for a Supreme Court homelessness case that would have national consequences.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In its ruling, the Supreme Court determined that cities can, in fact, enforce anti-camping ordinances, even when no shelter is available. This decision gives local governments greater authority to penalize unsheltered individuals for sleeping in public spaces.
This Supreme Court homelessness ruling is a setback for those advocating for a housing-first approach to homelessness. By allowing criminal penalties to be imposed on individuals with no access to shelter, the decision reinforces punitive measures rather than long-term solutions. For many experiencing homelessness, this means an increased risk of legal entanglements, fines they cannot afford to pay, and potential incarceration—barriers that make it even harder to secure stable housing. While this case may have originally focused on the Grant Pass homeless population, this federal ruling affects unhoused people across the U.S., underscoring the urgent need for systemic change.
Legal Precedents Impact
The Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling marks a shift from a previous Supreme Court homelessness case, Martin v. Boise (2018). In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities could not criminalize sleeping in public spaces if no shelter was available, framing such penalties as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Martin v. Boise set a legal precedent that protected unhoused individuals from punitive enforcement in many Western states.
With this latest Supreme Court homeless case, the precedent has been weakened, giving cities nationwide more latitude to enforce anti-homelessness laws. This decision could embolden municipalities to take a more aggressive stance against visible homelessness, leading to increased policing rather than policy-driven solutions. It is now more important than ever for advocates and local leaders to push for policies that address the root causes of homelessness rather than relying on enforcement that only perpetuates the cycle of poverty and displacement.
Impact on Homeless Populations
Grants Pass v. Johnson has far-reaching consequences for individuals experiencing homelessness. While the decision does not mandate action against people experiencing homelessness, it does make it easier for communities to impose penalties, including arrests and fines, for sleeping in public spaces even when no shelter is available.
This shift means that people already facing housing insecurity may now encounter additional challenges, like the increased likelihood of receiving fines they cannot afford to pay, arrest records that make securing employment and housing even more difficult, and interactions with law enforcement that could escalate into criminal charges. These legal consequences don’t address the root causes of homelessness—lack of affordable housing, insufficient mental health services, and economic hardship—but instead add new barriers that make escaping homelessness even harder.
The decision directly impacts states in the Ninth Circuit, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. These states previously followed the Martin v. Boise precedent. Now, local governments in these states have more authority to impose anti-camping laws, potentially leading to increased enforcement efforts and displacement of homeless populations.
Although the Supreme Court homelessness case doesn’t explicitly apply to states outside the Ninth Circuit, cities across the country could view this decision as an endorsement of stricter enforcement measures. This could potentially shift the focus away from housing-first solutions and toward punitive approaches that have historically failed to reduce homelessness rates.
This ruling underscores the urgent need for communities to invest in sustainable, long-term solutions rather than relying on criminalization. Without significant policy changes, those experiencing homelessness will continue to face a cycle of legal challenges and displacement—further entrenching a crisis that requires housing, not handcuffs.
Will This Ruling Solve (or Worsen) the Homelessness Crisis?
This Supreme Cout homeless case risks making the homelessness crisis worse. The threat of fines, arrest, and a criminal record adds new hurdles for those already struggling to secure stable housing and employment. Without meaningful investments in affordable housing, mental health services, and economic support, enforcement-driven policies will only perpetuate the cycle of homelessness.
The ruling also reinforces the harmful myth that people experiencing homelessness are simply “homeless by choice.” Allowing stricter penalties legitimizes the idea that legal consequences will somehow push individuals to seek shelter when, in reality, many have no options available. This perspective ignores the systemic barriers that keep people unhoused, including skyrocketing rent, stagnant wages, and the lack of accessible support services. Criminalizing homelessness doesn’t provide a path to stability—it just pushes the crisis further out of sight.
United Way NCA is Taking Action to Address Homelessness
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson is a stark reminder that homelessness cannot be solved through punishment. Criminalizing unsheltered individuals does not create more housing, improve access to mental health care, or lift people out of poverty. Real solutions require long-term investment in housing-first policies, support services, and community-driven initiatives that address the root causes of homelessness.
At United Way NCA, we are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to safe, stable housing. Through partnerships with local shelters, advocacy efforts, and direct support programs, we work to provide real pathways out of homelessness—not just temporary fixes. If you or someone you know is experiencing homelessness, contact our homeless support hotline for immediate assistance and resources. Together, we can push for policies that prioritize housing over handcuffs and build a future where everyone has a safe place to call home.
