Eighth Amendment Overview

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishments" and "excessive fines" imposed by the government.

The Supreme Court considers the meaning of "cruel and unusual" based on what people in the Founding Era would have considered cruel and unusual.

The Eighth Amendment aimed to prevent punishments considered disproportionate or excessive in light of the crime committed.

Punishing a person for their status, not their actions, violates the Eighth Amendment. For example, jailing someone for being sick with a common cold.

A class action lawsuit is a case filed by one person or a small group on behalf of many people experiencing a similar issue.

Class action lawsuits allow individuals with limited resources to pool their efforts for a stronger case against a defendant, like a business or government.

A

If the plaintiff wins a class action suit, all members of the certified class may benefit, even if they were unaware of the lawsuit.

Grants Pass, Oregon, is a small city with a significant homelessness problem. Despite a low vacancy rate, the city lacks adequate shelter options for adults, leaving many residents at risk.

The lack of available housing options in Grants Pass, Oregon, makes it extremely difficult for people to find a place to live. In 2019, the vacancy rate was only 1%, meaning there were very few empty apartments or homes.

Grants Pass, Oregon, has a city ordinance which prohibits camping on public property. This means it is illegal for people to sleep outside or set up makeshift shelters in public areas.

The Grants Pass city ordinances against camping on public property include penalties such as fines, exclusion orders, and criminal trespass charges. These penalties can add up quickly and result in significant fines and potential jail time.

The city of Grants Pass, Oregon, uses a series of ordinances regarding camping on public property to address homelessness. These ordinances have had the unintended consequence of increasing homelessness and making it more difficult for people to access basic needs.

The city of Grants Pass, Oregon, has a 30-day transitional housing program for homeless individuals, but it has strict requirements and limited capacity. Only those who can work full-time without pay are eligible, and they must attend religious services twice a day.

In Grants Pass, Oregon, only one shelter exists for unaccompanied minors (ages 10-17). There are no shelters for adults experiencing homelessness.

Despite a high rate of homelessness, Grants Pass, Oregon, has a very limited number of resources available to people experiencing homelessness. These resources are often difficult to access due to strict requirements and limited capacity.

The ordinances are not about camping in the traditional sense. They punish homeless people for sleeping anywhere in public, even with a blanket.

The ordinances don't provide alternatives; they make it impossible to live in Grants Pass without facing fines and jail time.

The ordinances make a distinction between people with houses and homeless individuals, showing the biased nature of the laws.

The ordinances treat homelessness itself as a crime, meaning simply being homeless is punishable.

The ordinances are cruel and unusual because they punish a person for a characteristic they cannot change, violating their constitutional rights.

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. This case examines whether punishing homeless people for sleeping on public property when shelter is unavailable violates the Eighth Amendment.

A legal action where a group of people with similar experiences sue together. In this case, it represents all homeless residents of Grants Pass seeking to challenge city ordinances.

A court order that stops a specific action. In this case, it prevented the city from enforcing ordinances against homeless people sleeping in public parks.

The legal principle that laws should not punish someone simply for their status, like being homeless. This case explores how a law against sleeping outdoors disproportionately impacts homeless individuals.

The city's policy was to not specifically target homeless people for law enforcement actions. However, they may have still enforced ordinances against homeless people sleeping in parks, even if they wouldn't have enforced the same ordinance against a non-homeless person.

The court found that Grants Pass' laws about sleeping outdoors were unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because they unfairly punished homeless people without access to shelter and made it impossible to live in Grants Pass without facing repeated fines and jail time.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, but clarified that the injunction did not prevent the city from banning tents or stoves, and they could still enforce the law against those who had access to shelter.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the city's petition to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. This means that the court will review the case and possibly issue a final decision on the constitutionality of the city's ordinances.

The Eighth Amendment protects individuals from excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. It does not restrict the government's right to regulate conduct, even if that conduct may be involuntary.

This landmark case ruled that criminalizing addiction to narcotics was unconstitutional. The court determined that punishing someone for their status as an addict was cruel and unusual.

In this case, the court upheld the law prohibiting public intoxication. It concluded that the law targeted the act of being drunk in public, not the status of alcoholism.

The City of Grants Pass argued that its ordinances were merely regulating the use of public property for the public's health, safety, and well-being. This regulation was not punishment for homelessness itself, but rather for the act of camping on public property.

The plaintiffs argued that the city's ordinances effectively punished homeless individuals for simply existing in the community without access to adequate shelter. Their argument was based on the idea that the city could not criminalize homelessness as a condition.

The courts found that it was not inherently cruel and unusual to impose fines or short jail terms for camping on public property. The punishment itself was not considered excessive or inhumane.

The courts were not able to definitively determine whether the act of camping on public property was truly involuntary or whether available shelters were sufficient. This made it difficult to assess whether lack of access to shelter justified the criminalization of camping.

The Supreme Court's precedent in both Robinson and Powell was not viewed as establishing a blanket ban on punishing involuntary conduct. It was understood that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the punishment of all involuntary actions.