On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a case called Johnson v. City of Grants Pass. The outcome of the case will affect the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of unhoused people across the western United States. This blog explains the Grants Pass case and explains why it is especially important to people with disabilities.
1. What is the Grants Pass case?
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass is a court case that was filed in 2018 in the State of Oregon. The case was filed to stop the City of Grants Pass from ticketing unhoused people for sleeping in public places. The City had been aggressively issuing citations to unhoused people under a set of local laws that makes it illegal to sleep anywhere on public property with items such as pillows and blankets, even when they have no choice. These laws were enacted by Grants Pass for the specific purpose of pushing unhoused people out of the City. They allow people to be fined up to several hundred dollars per violation, and can result in bans from public property and criminal prosecution for trespass. The court case asked the district court in Oregon to find that that ticketing unhoused people for sleeping outside under these laws when they have no other place to go violates their Constitutional rights.
In July 2020, the district court decided that it is “cruel and unusual punishment’ to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other place to go. Punishment that is cruel or unusual violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In making its decision, the district court relied on an earlier case, called Martin v. Boise, which said that cities cannot punish involuntarily unhoused people for sleeping outside.
About a month later, the district court issued an order that said the City of Grants Pass cannot ticket unhoused people for sleeping in city parks at night. The City appealed the order, but the appellate court agreed with the district court. The appellate court said that that a person who is involuntarily homeless should not be punished for sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket to protect them from the elements. The City then asked the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision, and the Supreme Court agreed.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on April 22, 2024.
2. What question will the Supreme Court be answering in the Grants Pass case?
The Supreme Court will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket, when they have no other place to go.
3. Why is the Grants Pass case important to people with disabilities?
The Grants Pass case is of significant concern to people with disabilities. People with disabilities are at higher risk of becoming homeless than non-disabled people and are over-represented in unhoused populations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2023 Point-in-Time count[1] suggests that one-third of individuals experiencing homelessness in the U.S. have a disability.[2] In California, the number is even higher, with 42% of people experiencing homelessness reporting a disabling condition.[3]
People with disabilities who are unhoused are also more likely to be subject to punishment under laws that criminalize things like sleeping in public areas:
- Some disabilities, and disability-related needs, make compliance with local laws difficult or more burdensome without accommodations. For example, a local law may say that sleeping is only allowed in certain areas, but unless the area is accessible, someone who uses a wheelchair may not be able to access the area.
- Some cities and counties do not have good policies or procedures on how to ask for reasonable accommodations[4], and/or fail to accommodate people when enforcing local laws despite a duty to do so. For example, allowing people more time to move their belongings if such time is needed due to a disability.
4. Why are people with disabilities more likely to experience homelessness?
There are many reasons people with disabilities are more likely to experience homelessness. For example:
- People with disabilities experience higher rates of poverty due to ableism and other structural barriers to employment and economic security. Additionally, federal policies, including income and asset limits for SSI recipients and sub-minimum wages, make it hard for people with disabilities to escape poverty. This is particularly true for people with disabilities who are black or brown. People with disabilities are therefore the most likely group to experience homelessness, be rent burdened,[5] or be unable to afford housing.
- Existing housing stock is overwhelmingly inaccessible. It is estimated that less than 5% of housing nationwide is accessible for people with mobility difficulties, and less than 1% is accessible for wheelchair users.[6] Less than one-percent.
- People with disabilities face higher rates of disability discrimination in housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that complaints alleging housing discrimination based on disability make up almost 62% of all housing discrimination complaints filed.[7]
5. What happens if the Supreme Court agrees with the City of Grants Pass?
If the Supreme Court agrees with Grants Pass, states and local governments will be able to punish people who are forced to sleep outside, even when they have no other place to go. This will further harm unhoused people and deepen racial, gender, and health inequalities.
- Research shows that criminalization only makes the homelessness crisis worse by continuing a cycle of homelessness and incarceration.[8]
- Research shows that people who are incarcerated are affected by health problems years after they are released, impacting their ability to get and keep housing and employment.[9] They also lack access to necessary medications and treatment and are not linked with needed community-based services upon release. This is another barrier to getting and keeping housing and employment.
6. If the Supreme Court agrees with Johnson, will that prevent the City from addressing encampments?
The City of Grants Pass has argued that if the Supreme Court agrees with Johnson, it will stop them from addressing or regulating encampments in their community. This is false.
The district court’s order in Grants Pass does not say the City can’t clear encampments or have rules about encampments. The decision in the Martin v. Boise case does not say that either. These cases are not about camping. What the Grants Pass and Martin cases actually say is that governmental entities cannot punish people who are involuntarily homeless for sleeping on public property when there is nowhere else for them to sleep, or for using the protection of items like pillows and blankets to survive cold nights.
7. What can cities, counties, and states do to address homelessness instead of punishing unhoused people?
Criminalizing people based on poverty, disability or housing status is not the solution to homelessness. Governmental entities like the City of Grants Pass have failed, and continue to fail, to meet the needs of their unhoused residents, particularly those with disabilities. Local laws criminalizing quality of life or life-sustaining activities (like sleeping) in public spaces must be repealed. Alternatives must be explored and implemented. For example:
- Diversion of funds away from law enforcement budgets and toward meaningful community responses to homelessness;
- Collaboration between law enforcement and behavioral health and social service providers to provide tailored and noncarceral interventions for individuals experiencing homelessness,
- Investment in strategies, systems and services to meet the urgent needs of unhoused people, including “Housing First” permanent supportive housing and wrap-around services;
- Increased access to short-term solutions like accessible emergency shelters with transitional services such as rapid-re-housing, health care, and income support;
- Improvements in street outreach programs, and in linking people to the benefits, housing, and services and supports they need;
- Development of education and public awareness campaigns to change negative and incorrect narratives around homelessness.
For more on the Grants Pass Supreme Court case, why it matters, and what you can do about it, please check out this webinar hosted by the ABA Commission on Homelessness and Poverty, the National Homelessness Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, and RESULTS Educational Fund.
[1] Point-in-Time counts are an annual survey of the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January. They are sometimes referred to as “Street Counts,” “Homeless Counts,” or “Street Needs Assessments”
[2] See U.S. DEPT. OF HOUS. AND URB. DEV., THE 2023 ANNUAL HOMELESS ASSESSMENT REPORT TO CONGRESS 78-79 (2023) (31 percent of individuals experiencing homelessness in the United States [143,105 people] reported experiencing chronic homelessness, a term that refers to individuals with a disability who have continuously experienced homelessness for one year or more, or have experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time experiencing homelessness is at least 12 months.)
[3] California Health Care Foundation, 2022 Edition — People Experiencing Homelessness in California (June 2022).
[4] Reasonable accommodations are changes to policies, practices or procedures necessary to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities.
[5] “Rent burdened” means a household that pays more than 30% of their income toward housing costs.
[6] Chan, S., Bosher, L., Ellen, I., Karfunkel, B., & Liao, H. . L. (2015). Accessibility of America’s Housing Stock: Analysis of the 2011 American Housing Survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Policy Development and Research.
[7] See FHEO State of Fair Housing Annual Report to Congress FY 2022.
[8] See e.g., Chris Herring, Dilara Yarbrough, and Lisa Marie Alatorre, “Pervasive Penality: How the Criminalization of Poverty Perpetuates Homelessness,” Social Problems 67 (2020) (criminalization measures do not lessen homelessness, rather they continue a cycle of homelessness and incarceration).
[9] See e.g., Michael Massoglia and Brianna Remster, “Linkages Between Incarceration and Health,” Public Health Reports 134, supp. 1 (2019).
