Cities across the nation are evaluating the ordinances that impact the unhoused in their communities. Their efforts have been greenlit in part by a recent Supreme Court ruling that threatens to have a major impact on how cities manage the growing homelessness crisis, especially in hotbed areas like Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and San Diego.

In a 6-3 decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities have the authority to ban people from sleeping and camping in public places and that cities can enforce their statutes even if city leaders do not provide shelter or affordable housing for unhoused populations. The judgment overturned lower court rulings that determined such laws were cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment as they punished people who sleep outside because they do not have a home or shelter to go to.

In writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch commented on the multitude of reasons for homelessness and the magnitude of the problem, writing, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many.” He added that federal judges did not have any “special competence” to establish how cities should address or manage the homelessness they are observing within their communities.

The opinion continued, “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 ruling was the result of an Oregon city lawsuit that pushed back against punishments a homeless resident was subjected to because she was camping outside. In October 2018, resident Debra Blake was represented as a plaintiff by the Oregon Law Center. In her lawsuit, Blake claimed that “Grants Pass is trying to run homeless people out of town.” After Blake passed away in 2021, Gloria Johnson and John Logan were named as class representatives while the case moved through the appeals process.

Johnson, who was involuntarily homeless in Grants Pass, says she was punished and fined for sleeping in her van. She argued that a city statute made it illegal for individuals to camp on public property, a law Johnson argued was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and Excessive Fines Clause because Johnson had nowhere to turn due to a lack of shelters or other housing support resources.

In July 2020, the Medford district court ruled that Grants Pass’s ordinances involving the homeless and where they sleep were unconstitutional. The city would go on to appeal the decision, where it was upheld by a three-judge panel. The city petitioned to have the case heard in front of all 29 judges on the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, but the request was denied. The High Court would eventually hear the case earlier this summer, overturning the appeals court.

Advocates for the homeless were quick to speak out against the ruling, with the National Alliance to End Homelessness sharing a statement that expressed in part, “This decision sets a dangerous precedent that will cause undue harm to people experiencing homelessness and give free reign to local officials who prefer pointless and expensive arrests and imprisonment, rather than real solutions.”

Some community leaders, on the other hand, have welcomed the ruling. Mayor R. Rex Parris, a Republican of Lancaster, California shared, “I’m warming up the bulldozer,” adding, “I want the tents away from the residential areas and the shopping centers and the freeways.”

Parris says he empathizes with individuals experiencing homelessness in his community, sharing that his town provides homeless shelters for those who need a place to stay. His city, he says, has “a state-of-the-art shelter with beds available. But the population we’re talking about doesn’t want a bed.” City leaders elsewhere have also complained of frustration in offering shelter and other services to populations that refuse them.