Supreme Court, by 6-3 vote, rejects Eighth Amendment defense to charging homeless in Grants Pass

The Supreme Court this morning handed down lengthy opinions City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175 (S. Ct. June 28, 2024) (available here).  Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for Court, which starts and ends this way:

Many cities across the American West face a homelessness crisis.  The causes are varied and complex, the appropriate public policy responses perhaps no less so. Like many local governments, the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, has pursued a multifaceted approach. Recently, it adopted various policies aimed at “protecting the rights, dignity[,] and private property of the homeless.” App. 152.  It appointed a “homeless community liaison” officer charged with ensuring the homeless receive information about “assistance programs and other resources” available to them through the city and its local shelter. Id., at 152–153; Brief for Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission as Amicus Curiae 2–3.  And it adopted certain restrictions against encampments on public property. App. 155–156.  The Ninth Circuit, however, held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause barred that last measure.  With support from States and cities across the country, Grants Pass urged this Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. We take up that task now....

Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370 U.S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting). The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it 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. The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Justice Thomas authored a short concurring opinion to urge the overruling of the Robinson ruling that the majority was content to distinguish: "rather than let Robinson’s erroneous holding linger in the background of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, we should dispose of it once and for all."

Justice Sotomayor authored a lengthy dissent, which was joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.  Here is a paragraph from the start of her opinion:

It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested. The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused. This Court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular. Otherwise, “the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 104 (1958) (plurality opinion).