City of Grants Pass v. Johnson PDF

# City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ## Background ### History of the Eighth Amendment - The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees protection from "cruel and unusual punishments" and “excessive fines" imposed by the government. - The Supreme Court sometimes considers modern standards o...

# City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ## Background ### History of the Eighth Amendment - The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees protection from "cruel and unusual punishments" and “excessive fines" imposed by the government. - The Supreme Court sometimes considers modern standards of decency in determining whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual." - The Court has focused on what the Founding-era generation would have considered cruel and unusual at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted. - The Eighth Amendment borrowed most of its language from the English Declaration of Rights, written in 1689. - The drafters of the declaration were reacting to punishments imposed upon the enemies of King James II. - The Framers of the U.S. Constitution shared their English forebears' concerns and adopted similar language for the text of the Eighth Amendment. - Some argue that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was inspired by barbarous methods of torture and execution, others say the Punishments Clause, like the Excessive Fines Clause, was motivated by a concern for disproportionate punishments. ### Disproportionate Punishments - The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that grossly disproportionate punishments violate the Punishments Clause. - In determining whether a given punishment is grossly disproportionate, the Supreme Court has considered, among other things, whether the punishment serves any interest in the criminal justice system or instead involves "the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering." - The Supreme Court has ruled that punishing someone for having a status, rather than for their conduct, always violates the Eighth Amendment, explaining that "[e]ven one day in prison would be cruel and unusual punishment for the 'crime' of having a common cold." ### Class Action Lawsuits - Class action suits are cases brought by an individual or a smaller group on behalf of all people who find themselves in a similar situation. - Class action suits allow plaintiffs who individually would not have many resources to combine their resources for a lawsuit. - They also allow the defendant often, a business or government, to dispose of many lawsuits with just one case. - To be able to file a class action lawsuit, the group of plaintiffs first must be found to be a "class" by the court. - If the plaintiff wins the class action suit, all members of the class may benefit, even if they were unaware of the suit. ## Facts - Grants Pass, Oregon, is a small city with a population of 38,000. - In 2019, there were 602 people experiencing homelessness and almost twice as many who were considered “precariously housed" or at very high risk of becoming homeless. - The vacancy rate for housing in the city was 1%, meaning there was almost no available housing. - Grants Pass does not have any homeless shelters for adults. - There is an 18-bed shelter that serves only unaccompanied minors aged 10–17. - There is a transitional housing program, but stays are limited to 30 days and participants must work for the organization full-time without pay. - People who are unable to work because of physical or mental disabilities are ineligible. - Participants are required to attend church services twice daily and on Sundays, and the program has limited capacity: 78 spaces for men and 60 spaces for women and children. - In 2013, the Grants Pass City Council held a public meeting to "identify solutions to current vagrancy problems." - One action item coming out of the meeting was to increase enforcement of a set of ordinances that prohibit "camping" on public property. - Under the ordinances, a person "camps" whenever they occupy a "place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or maintained for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live, whether or not such place incorporates the use of any tent ... or any other structure." - Fines for violating these ordinances start at $295. - That amount can be reduced by pleading guilty to the charge and can be increased if the person has been found guilty repeatedly. - If left unpaid, the fine increases to $537.60. - If a person is cited with a violation of these ordinances twice in a year, the city can issue an exclusion order banning them from public property for 30 days. - If a person violates an exclusion order, they are charged with criminal trespass, which is punishable with up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine. - These fines and punishments can accumulate in as little as one day. - After the 2013 city council meeting, the number of tickets issued for violating the ordinances increased dramatically. - While only 24 tickets were issued in 2012, 74 tickets were issued in 2013, and 228 tickets were issued in 2014. - The city stated that police department policy made clear that homelessness is not a crime and that police did "not use homelessness solely as a basis for detention or law enforcement action.” - The city's police officers acknowledged, however, that they would enforce the ordinances against a homeless person resting on a blanket in a park, but not a non-homeless person, and the city could not identify any non-homeless person who was ticketed or jailed under the ordinances. - In October 2018, Debra Blake, a resident of Grants Pass who was experiencing homelessness, sued the city arguing that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the ordinances' imposition of fines and jail time on people experiencing homelessness for sleeping on public property when they do not have access to shelter. - Two other residents who were experiencing homelessness, John Logan and Gloria Johnson, joined Blake as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. - Blake, Logan, and Johnson asked the District Court to (1) certify a class consisting of all residents of Grants Pass experiencing involuntarily homelessness and (2) issue an injunction (a court order to cease an action) that would stop the city from punishing unhoused people for resting or sleeping outside when shelter is unavailable. - They argued that because the ordinances make it physically impossible for a person who does not have access to shelter to remain in Grants Pass without facing endless fines and jail time, the ordinances inflict status-based punishment on the city's unhoused residents in violation of the Eighth Amendment. - The District Court granted the motion for class certification and issued an injunction to stop the enforcement of the ordinance.. - The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the city's punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. - The injunction prohibited the city from enforcing the camping ordinances in certain city parks at night. - The city was permitted to enforce the ordinances on all other public property and in city parks during daytime hours, so long as a warning was given 24 hours in advance. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the class certification order. - It largely upheld the injunction; however, it clarified that the injunction did not prevent Grants Pass from banning tents or stoves and the city was free to enforce the ordinances against any person who had access to shelter. - Grants Pass petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, and the Court agreed. ## Issue - According to the petitioner (City of Grants Pass): Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute "cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? - According to the respondents (Johnson): Do Grants Pass' ordinances violate the Eighth Amendment by inflicting punishment on the city's homeless residents for simply existing in the community without access to shelter? ## Constitutional Amendments and Supreme Court Precedents - **Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution** - "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - **Robinson v. California (1962)** - Robinson challenged his conviction for violating a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. - The Supreme Court ruled that a law criminalizing addiction to narcotics violated the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. - This case established that the Eighth Amendment forbids governments from punishing someone for having a status like addiction, rather than for engaging in any conduct. - **Powell v. Texas (1968)** - This case challenged a law prohibiting public intoxication as an Eighth Amendment violation. - The Supreme Court found that the law prohibiting public intoxication was not a violation because it did not punish Powell for the status of alcoholism, but rather being drunk in a public location when he had the option of drinking in the privacy of his home. ## Arguments for the City of Grants Pass, Oregon (petitioner) - Text, history, and precedent all establish that the Eighth Amendment outlaws cruel and unusual methods of punishment. - Fines and short jail terms for camping on public property are not cruel and unusual punishments. - The Eighth Amendment's three clauses set limits on bail, fines, and punishments. - They do not limit which conduct governments may deem unlawful in the first place. - Governments have the power and obligation to regulate the use of public property like parks for the health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare of the entire citizenry. - The Eighth Amendment does not address whether and when "involuntary" conduct can be punished. - Courts are unable to determine whether camping on public property is truly involuntary or whether available shelters are adequate. - Neither Robinson nor Powell set the precedent that the Eighth Amendment forbids punishment for involuntary conduct. ## Arguments for Johnson (respondents) - The challenged ordinances are not "camping" regulations in any ordinary sense of the word; rather, the ordinances punish people experiencing homelessness for sleeping anywhere on public property at any time with so much as a blanket to survive the cold, even if they have no access to shelter. - By design, the ordinances make it physically impossible for residents who are experiencing homelessness to remain in Grants Pass without facing endless fines and jail time. - While a person who has a home does not violate the ordinances when picnicking in a park or sitting on a public bench, a person experiencing homelessness temporarily "lives” wherever they rest or sleep. - The ordinances equate camping with living as a person experiencing homelessness in Grants Pass. - The ordinances make it a crime for a person to have the status of homelessness. - This conflicts with the precedent set in Robinson that status-based punishment is categorically cruel and unusual. - Imposing a punishment on someone for having the status of homelessness when they are unable to obtain shelter indoors serves no purpose in the criminal justice system, but rather serves only the illegitimate aim of forcing residents experiencing homelessness to move to other jurisdictions..