Grants Pass' lawyers file opening brief in Supreme Court case on homeless camping bans

Attorneys said the appeals court has "tied the hands" of city leaders addressing homelessness.

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The attorneys representing Grants Pass in its upcoming Supreme Court case have filed an opening brief ahead of the ruling that could have a major impact on how cities address homelessness.

The brief that international law firm Gibson Dunn filed on Monday argues the Supreme Court should reverse two rulings that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made in 2018 and in 2022.

In September 2018, the appeals court determined the City of Boise violated the Constitution’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause by banning homeless residents from camping or sleeping in public spaces.

The appeals court refused to reconsider a similar case out of Grants Pass later in July 2023. About 10 months beforehand, unsheltered residents sued the city over a set of ordinances that prohibited them from camping on city property. Some ordinances required that residents pay fines of up to several hundred dollars if they violated them.

But after Oregon’s U.S. District Court sided with the plaintiffs in Johnson V. City of Grants Pass, the appeals court upheld its Boise decision — once again referring to the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Grants Pass’ legal team argues these decisions have “tied the hands” of local leaders hoping to resolve the homeless crisis in their respective cities.

“This case involves the fundamental police power that all States possess to preserve public sidewalks, parks, schoolgrounds, and other spaces for the use and enjoyment of the general public, free from obstruction, harassment, and inconvenience,” Gibson Dunn wrote in its opening brief.

The law firm also argued that, while homelessness is a nationwide issue, the Constitution shouldn’t determine how it is fixed.

“…the solution is not to stretch the Eighth Amendment beyond its limits and place the federal courts in charge of this pressing social problem. Enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property through modest punishments is neither cruel nor unusual,” court documents said.

According to Gibson Dunn, hundreds of organizations and cities have signed briefs in support of Grants Pass in the upcoming Supreme Court ruling.

The law firm cited a brief from the League of Oregon Cities, which claimed that Portland officials offered 3,399 to shelter beds to unsheltered residents between May 2022 and July 2023, but they were declined 2,560 times.

For the plaintiffs in Johnson V. City of Grants Pass, court documents show that homeless residents had “inadequate” options for temporary housing. Judges said the city offered four temporary shelters, one of which required residents to “attend an approved place of worship each Sunday and that place of worship had to espouse ‘traditional Christian teachings such as the Apostles Creed.’”

The Supreme Court will reconsider both arguments on Monday, Apr. 22.