“Just because the Supreme Court has overturned this order doesn’t mean cities should just go into a mode of being reactionary and criminalizing people for biological necessities,” she said. “Particularly in Chicago and Illinois, I think there is a recognition that criminalization is not effective. A housing first approach is effective and that seems to be the direction that people here want to move.”
Patricia Nix-Hodes, director of CCH’s The Law Project.
CCH’s Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision to Criminalize Street Homelessness
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) is deeply disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court limited the rights of people experiencing homelessness in a decision in the Johnson v. Grants Pass case.
Originating from Grants Pass, Oregon, the Supreme Court decision allows cities to penalize people for sleeping outdoors if they have even a blanket to stay warm, even when they have nowhere else to go. Lower court decisions in the case found that fining and arresting people in those circumstances was “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Court’s decision does not recognize the reality of the lived experience of people who have no place else to go. As noted in the first sentence of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”
There is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Chicago, Illinois, and throughout the country and a lack of emergency shelter to address the need. Anti-bedding ordinances, like those at issue in the case, would be particularly harmful to people experiencing homelessness in climates like Chicago and Illinois. Any such measures passed here would punish Black Chicagoans and Illinoisans, who disproportionately experience homelessness.
“Fining and penalizing people experiencing homelessness does not solve homelessness. Indeed, criminalizing homelessness only serves to exacerbate it,” said Patricia Nix-Hodes, Director of the Law Project of CCH. “The solution to homelessness is to provide permanent affordable housing.”
CCH, alongside 27 partner organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case, raising the importance of the case and the impact on people experiencing homelessness in Chicago and Illinois. Pro bono partner Much Shelist supported CCH in filing the brief, and attorneys Steven Blonder, Josh Leavitt, and Charlotte Franklin were instrumental in drafting the brief. Legal Council for Health Justice and Law Center for Better Housing also partnered on the brief.
CCH joined the National Homelessness Law Center and hundreds of other organizations that submitted more than 40 amicus briefs in support of people experiencing homelessness.
Amicus brief partners: AIDS Foundation Chicago, All Chicago Making Homelessness History, BEDS Plus, Inc., Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Chicago Rehab Network, Chicago Urban League, Chicago Women Take Action, Covenant House Illinois, Deborah’s Place, Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project, Healthcare Alternative Systems, Inc, Heartland Alliance Health, Housing Action Illinois, Illinois Public Health Institute, Impact for Equity, James B. Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, Law Center for Better Housing, Legal Council for Health Justice, LYTE Collective, North Suburban Legal Aid Clinic, Organized Communities Against Deportations, Red Line Service Institute, Safer Foundation, South Suburban PADS, Street Samaritans, The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence, The Night Ministry, and Thresholds.
Oral Arguments Begin in Johnson v. Grants Pass Case, Determining the Constitutionality of Criminalizing Homelessness
By Sam Paler-Ponce, interim associate director of policy
On Monday, April 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court began oral arguments in Johnson v. Grants Pass, a case deciding if cities have the right to penalize people experiencing homelessness for sleeping outdoors.
Listen to the oral argument by clicking here.
The City of Grants Pass argues the city is just following the trend of most other cities, as many cities across the country are already arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness. However, Grants Pass has taken the most extreme posture: there is nowhere, at no time, where people living outside can sleep with things like a blanket or pillow.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
At the heart of Johnson v. Grants Pass lies the interpretation of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. In 1962, the Supreme Court weighed in on a similar issue in the case of Robinson v. California. The case struck down a California law that made it a crime to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.”
The court held that the law may not criminalize someone’s status as a person with a substance use disorder and must instead target some kind of criminal act. Therefore, a state may punish a person for the illegal purchase, sale, or possession of narcotics, and—absent any evidence of illegal drug use— the state of California could not punish someone simply for existing with a substance use disorder.
Martin v. Boise
The 2018 case of Martin v. Boise challenged the city of Boise’s enforcement of camping and disorderly conduct ordinances against persons experiencing homelessness—those who need to sleep in public in the absence of adequate housing or shelter.
Now six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by the city of Boise to review the case Martin v. Boise (formerly Bell v. Boise). This leaves in place earlier rulings under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that people experiencing street homelessness could no longer be arrested simply because they are homeless.
Dozens of court cases have since cited Martin v. Boise, including courts in Florida, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.
Criminalizing Homelessness
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on this landmark case, the outcome holds significant implications for the quarter of a million people nationwide who find themselves without shelter on any given night. While the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass serves as a focal point for legal debate, it also highlights the systemic failures that perpetuate homelessness nationwide.
In Grants Pass, people are issued $295 tickets for using a blanket to stay warm when they have nowhere else to go. Punitive measures like incarceration and fines exacerbate the issue, rather than resolve it. The real solution lies in ensuring safe, decent, and affordable housing.
Local Insight
Over 1,000 organizations and public leaders across the country have filed more than 40 amicus briefs (“amici”) in support of Gloria Johnson and homeless rights in the landmark case.
An amicus brief is submitted by a person or group not directly involved in a legal case but is permitted to support the court by providing information, expertise, or insight relevant to the case. These briefs, known as “amici,” aim to inform the court about potential public policy consequences of a ruling.
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, alongside 27 partner organizations, filed an amicus brief, raising the importance of the case and the impact on people experiencing homelessness in Chicago and Illinois.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take a position by June 2024.
View the transcript of the argument by clicking here.