In a significant move, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of municipal ordinances that prohibit homeless people from camping on public property. The court will review a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that anti-camping ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, violated the constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment."

The appeals court's decision, issued in 2022, applies to all nine states within its jurisdiction, including California, where several cities with large homeless populations are located. Local officials from cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling.

The 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that Grants Pass could not enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who were only seeking protection from the elements by sleeping outside with minimal shelter or in their cars at night when there were no available shelters. The court clarified that the decision only applied when homeless people engaged in conduct necessary for self-protection when no shelter spaces were accessible.

However, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain dissented and criticized the ruling, considering it a "dubious holding" based on a fanciful interpretation of the 8th Amendment. He argued that the decision hindered local communities from addressing homelessness and encroached on the policymaking authority of democratic processes.

Attorneys representing Grants Pass defended the city's position, asserting that civil fines for violating public camping restrictions were not cruel or unusual. They argued that the appeals court ruling had contributed to the growing problem of encampments in cities across the western United States.

The ordinances in question in Grants Pass prohibit sleeping or camping on publicly owned property, including sidewalks, streets, bridges, and city parks. Violators can face fines of several hundred dollars and exclusion orders from public property.

The case arose after a group of homeless individuals challenged the application of these ordinances, claiming that they were being punished for simply existing. Lawyers for the plaintiffs expressed concerns that the city's plan was to drive its homeless residents into neighboring jurisdictions by imposing penalties that made it impossible for them to live in Grants Pass.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has encountered such a case. In 2019, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett's appointment, the court declined to hear a similar case from Boise, Idaho, regarding the criminal prohibition of camping on public property. The 9th Circuit had ruled in 2018 that such prosecutions violated the 8th Amendment. In its 2022 ruling, the same court extended this reasoning to civil penalties, prompting the city of Boise to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision to review the case raises crucial questions about the balance between public safety and constitutional rights, particularly when addressing the issue of homelessness. The outcome of this case will have significant implications not only for Grants Pass and other cities within the 9th Circuit but also for how homelessness is approached nationwide.