On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) rendered a decision in the case of City of Grant Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (Johnson). This case has sparked a significant debate, and raised important questions about who should be responsible for our poor and homeless. In Johnson, a local ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon imposed a fine of nearly $300 for a first offense for anyone caught sleeping on public property. Any subsequent violation of this ordinance led to a fine as high as $1200 and a thirty-day vacation in the local jail. Gloria Johnson and John Logan unsuccessfully argued that this ordinance violated the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it exposed them to criminal penalties in lieu of shelter.
To say that this is a bad legal decision is an understatement. This is a very bad legal decision.
Homelessness is a social issue. Criminalizing individuals for their housing status is a basic human rights violation. Criminalization can have detrimental effects on individuals experiencing housing insecurity and can exacerbate the challenges they face. While there are some laws that prohibit sleeping in public spaces in order to address safety and public order concerns, criminalization fails to address the root causes of homelessness, such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, mental health or substance abuse issues. When homeless individuals are exposed to fines and criminal records, this perpetuates a cycle of poverty for individuals who are already struggling financially. How do we expect these individuals to pay fines if they cannot afford a place to live? Instead of providing long-term solutions, punitive measures can push individuals further into the margins of society without effectively addressing the underlying issues.
Criminalization can also create barriers to accessing employment and social services, making it harder for individuals to break the cycle of homelessness. When sleeping in public spaces is criminalized, individuals have limited alternatives for where they can go to seek shelter. Lack of safe and legal alternatives can force individuals to choose between risking arrest or compromising their safety and security. Furthermore, criminalizing homelessness reinforces negative stereotypes and may lead to increased discrimination and social exclusion. It is my opinion that this type of ordinance will in the long-term disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, such as BIPOC, youth and women, who may not have access to safe and stable housing.
The USSC’s decision to uphold this law not only presents a complicated legal issue, but also a moral quandary. While it is important to address public safety concerns and maintain the integrity of public spaces, it is equally important to protect the rights and dignity of all individuals, including those who are experiencing housing insecurity.
Homelessness is a complex and multifaceted issue that can result from various factors, the main reason being lack of financial resources. Many people become homeless due to underemployment, lack of affordable housing, and increase in cost-of-living expenses. There are other reasons why a person may become homeless such as evictions or natural disasters. Lest not forget that during Hurricane Katrina nearly 400,000 people were left homeless. Mental and physical health disorders or substance abuse issues may subject individuals to higher risk of homelessness when they do not have access to adequate treatment and support services. Also, many women and children become homeless because of domestic violence circumstances. Criminalizing a mother for sleeping in a car with her children at a public park can easily compound this very traumatic situation. If this is a repeat offense for the mother, she may be subjected to jail time and the children will be placed in the foster care system. The original trauma, the domestic violence, has now been intensified by enforcement of this ordinance.
The USSC missed the mark in this case and upheld a short-sighted and ineffective solution to addressing a myriad and complex social issue. Addressing the homeless problem requires a strategic plan, compassion, and empathy. Collaboration between many stakeholders including lawmakers, government agencies, private corporations, nonprofit organizations, and community groups is essential to help combat the homeless problem. Providing affordable housing, social services, mental health treatment initiatives and other resources is a more sustainable way to address homelessness.
While laws are essential for maintaining order and security, they must be accompanied by efforts to address the underlying social and economic barriers that contribute to the problem and ensure that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect. City of Grant Pass, Oregon v. Johnson highlights the need for a caring approach to addressing society’s issue of homelessness. ■