In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, stating that people experiencing homelessness can be subject to criminal and civil penalties for sleeping in public spaces. The case, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, originated from Grants Pass, Oregon, where local politicians sought to eradicate the homeless population through fines and jail time.

This ruling has raised concerns among disability rights advocates as individuals with disabilities are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness. Data reveals that 78 percent of homeless people report having mental health conditions, and an estimated 52 percent of homeless adults in shelters nationwide have a disability.

The lack of accessible and affordable housing is a pressing issue faced by people with disabilities, pushing those who rely on Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income into homelessness. Shockingly, only 6 percent of homes nationwide are wheelchair accessible, exacerbating the housing crisis for people with physical disabilities.

The City of Grants Pass case directly involves people with disabilities, as multiple individuals submitted declarations stating that they were unable to stay at the only shelter in the city due to disqualifying disabilities. CarrieLynn Hill, for example, was unable to stay at the shelter because her necessary nebulizer use was banned in the rooms. Debra Blake's disabilities prevented her from meeting the shelter's requirement of working 40 hours a week, further highlighting the challenges faced by homeless individuals with disabilities.

Faced with criminal sanctions for not having a place to live, Hill, Blake, and others joined together to sue Grants Pass, arguing that the ordinances amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. They relied on a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1962, Robinson v. California, which held that criminalizing disability was unconstitutional.

However, in the Grants Pass ruling, the Supreme Court has seemingly ignored the disability element of the case. In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch distinguished the case from Robinson, implying that the ordinance in Grants Pass only prohibits specific actions, such as sleeping outside, irrespective of housing status. This ruling effectively sets aside the precedent established by Robinson, reverting the Eighth Amendment's protections back to the discriminatory practices of the 19th century.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, acknowledging the harmful impact these ordinances have on the disability community and emphasizing the lack of accessible housing options that contributes to the disproportionate burden experienced by vulnerable individuals.

The Grants Pass ruling is one of many cases in recent Supreme Court terms that significantly affect the rights of people with disabilities. Disability rights groups have urged the Court to consider the broader impact of these decisions and highlight how criminalizing homelessness contradicts the decency standards of a civilized society.

In the face of this ruling, disability rights advocates vow to continue fighting alongside people with disabilities to ensure that constitutional and federal disability rights protections are upheld to the fullest extent of the law. It is crucial that both the courts and the general public recognize the stakes involved and work towards safeguarding the constitutional liberties and the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society.