Supreme Court Update: City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson

Image of LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg

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.

2024-2025 Supreme Court Term

Image of Water-infrastructure.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. 

Image of Gavel_3.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie

Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.

police investigating a crime scene
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok

Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.

Image of Budgeting_2.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford

Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees. 

Image of GettyImages-991802694.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.