Supreme Court Update: City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson
Author
Upcoming Events
Related News
Supreme Court Update: City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson
COUNTY NEXUS
As communities across the country address the complex and nuanced issues of housing shortages and homelessness crises, it is critical for localities to retain the ability to make tough policy choices unobstructed by court-issued mandates.
BACKGROUND
Over the last few years, courts have significantly narrowed the permissible scope of local regulation of public camping. The catalyst for this shift was Martin v. City of Boise, a 2018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that prohibits encampment ordinances when applied to homeless or unsheltered individuals when a local government lacks adequate emergency public shelter beds. However, the court left open the question of whether any regulation of the location or scope of public camping can be constitutional. In a subsequent case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the constitutionality of an anti-encampment ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon in a decision that appeared to expand Martin, citing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court granted review of that decision at the urging of numerous state and local governments and representative associations, including NACo.
NACo ADVOCACY
In a Local Government Legal Center Amicus Brief submitted in support of the petitioner, NACo argued that if a ruling for the respondent would divert complex, highly localized policy decisions about how to respond to homelessness from the county legislature to the federal courts, with substantial financial implications for local governments and perverse incentives to invest public resources on temporary shelter beds rather than more permanent solutions.
CURRENT STATUS
On June 28, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that anti-encampment ordinances do not violate the Eight Amendment, overturning both the decisions in Martin and in Grants Pass. The majority opinion, which cites the Local Government Legal Center's brief on numerous occasion, will provide the critical flexibility needed for county governments to respond to homelessness in their communities. Learn more here.
Current Supreme Court Term
NACo files amicus briefs in key cases to further county priorities ahead of the Supreme Court.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Monsanto Company v. Durnell
Monsanto v. Durnell considers a preemption issue that carries substantial implications for counties.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering when individuals who have been convicted of violating a local ordinance may later bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging that law.
NACo Legal Advocacy: William Trevor Case v. State of Montana
The question at hand in William Trevor Case v. State of Montana is how the “emergency-aid” exemption to the Fourth Amendment is defined and whether it should require “probable cause,” a higher legal threshold that would be needed to justify officers entering the premises of a home in an emergency-aid scenario.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
Advocacy
U.S. Supreme Court protects key flexibility for county governments responding to homelessness
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case of major significance for counties working to develop comprehensive responses to the homelessness crisis.
