Supreme Court says ban on public camping is constitutional; San Diego leaders react

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge on a set of anti-camping laws enacted in a small Oregon town, allowing governments to enforce such bans on sleeping in public even when there is no shelter available.

The ruling drew mixed reactions from San Diego’s local elected leaders and advocates, who called it a disappointment on one hand and a crucial step forward on the other.

In the 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the court ruled a ban on public camping does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The decision overturns a lower court’s ruling.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, said homelessness is a complex, pressing social issue and people will disagree about the best way to address it. But the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

Friday’s landmark decision is widely recognized as the most significant case about the rights of unhoused people in decades. It will have far-reaching implications nationwide, with more than 600,000 people experiencing homelessness any given night. Nearly half are unsheltered. 

The ruling comes at a time when the number of San Diegans sleeping outside or in vehicles in the city is the highest it’s been in the past decade. The most recent census found no fewer than 6,110 unsheltered residents throughout San Diego County.

“The fact that a majority of the Supreme Court found there was no Eighth Amendment violation is shocking and horrifying,” said Ann Menasche, a local civil rights attorney who has sued the city of San Diego for enforcing a ban against living in vehicles.

“There are many other grounds in the Constitution to fight for the rights of homeless people … so the fight’s not over by a long shot in the courts.”

The case — known as City of Grants Pass v. Johnson — stems from a complaint brought by the Oregon Law Center that claims the city’s anti-camping laws, which include a ban on sleeping in public with a pillow and blanket, have made it impossible for “involuntarily homeless people to exist within city limits without facing civil and criminal penalties.”

Gloria Johnson, one of the named respondents, is a retired nurse who fell into homelessness after her Social Security income failed to keep pace with rising housing costs in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of 38,000 residents.

But there is no emergency shelter for the city’s 600 unhoused residents.

Attorneys for Johnson argued that laws in Grants Pass effectively make it illegal to be homeless.

“Given the universal biological necessity of sleeping and of using a blanket to survive in cold weather, the City’s enforcement of its ordinances meant that its homeless residents could not remain within city limits without facing punishment,” attorneys for Johnson wrote in a brief. The city “criminalized their existence in Grants Pass.”

Attorneys for the city of Grants Pass argued this case has nothing to do with the status of being homeless — it’s about violating a ban on public camping. They argued previous rulings have only weakened the government’s ability to address the homelessness crisis at the “worst possible time.”

“Public-camping laws are a critical (and constitutional) backstop as cities attempt to stop the growth of encampments and start to make progress on the underlying causes of homelessness,” attorneys for Grants Pass wrote in a brief.

In the end, the high court’s conservative majority ruled the city’s ban on public camping was simply that — a ban on camping in public. 

“The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”

Lower court rulings have produced confusion and stripped people and their elected leaders of the ability to handle these difficult issues through the democratic process, Gorsuch wrote. 

These are tough policy questions, Gorsuch added. What does it mean to have nowhere else to go, and what qualifies as adequate shelter?

“Those unavoidable questions have plunged courts and cities across the Ninth Circuit into waves of litigation. And without anything in the Eighth Amendment to guide them, any answers federal judges can offer (and have offered) come … only by way of ‘fiat.’”

The ruling has far-reaching implications. It gives cities and states permission to enact laws that criminalize people for sleeping in public even when shelter isn’t available, according to legal organizations following the case.

The National Homelessness Law Center, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., called the ruling inhumane and said it will only make homelessness worse.

“Cities are now even more empowered to neglect proven housing-based solutions and to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors,” the group said in a statement.

Jennifer Hark Dietz, the CEO of a statewide homeless service provider called PATH, said her organization has seen how costly, ineffective and inhumane criminalization and enforcement policies can be.

“The status quo of people living outdoors is unacceptable, but we know what works — connecting people to outreach, supportive services, shelter and permanent housing,” she said in a statement. “Punishing people for being unsheltered is cruel and will not put an end to our homelessness crisis.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria told inewsource that Friday’s ruling brings much-needed clarity to how the city can enforce laws against unsafe encampments, but it won’t change the city’s strategy.

Touting his efforts to increase shelter opportunities, Gloria said in a statement, “we intend to continue to pursue additional beds like those planned for Kettner and Vine to help people off the street and get them connected to care and resources.”

City Council President Sean Elo-Rivera said in a statement he is disappointed by the ruling but “more committed than ever to addressing our homelessness crisis with compassionate solutions in San Diego.”

In El Cajon, Mayor Bill Wells, who is running for Congress, applauded the ruling and said it allows cities to “maintain order and support struggling people.”

“We need to adopt more comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of homelessness and addiction,” Wells said in a statement, noting his city’s ban on sleeping on the sidewalk and urging other cities to take similar action. “Ensuring public spaces remain safe and accessible is essential for the overall health of our community.”

The San Diego City Council narrowly passed an anti-camping ordinance last June, making it illegal to camp citywide if shelter beds are available, and anytime, regardless of shelter availability, near schools, parks, transit hubs and waterways. 

It has had a significant impact. The number of people sleeping on downtown sidewalks has been cut in half compared to this time last year. Since enforcement began, San Diego police have issued more than 70 citations and made at least 13 misdemeanor arrests for unauthorized camping. Some cities across San Diego County have weighed similar bans. A statewide proposal has stalled for now.

But the approach has not led to a decline in homelessness. Every month for the past two years, more people in San Diego County have lost housing than those who manage to find it. Those who want shelter often can’t get it. Gloria hopes to solve that problem by transforming an old warehouse into a 1,000-bed shelter.