Defending Local Control

CIS Helps Grants Pass Prevail at the Supreme Court

CIS Defends Grants Pass All the Way to the U.S. Supreme Court

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark 6-3 ruling in Johnson v. Grants Pass, affirming that enforcing camping regulations against homeless individuals does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment.

This critical decision allows local governments to enforce camping ordinances without fear of constitutional backlash and effectively overturns the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. Boise, which had restricted cities’ ability to regulate public spaces. For cities and counties across the western United States, this ruling represents a turning point in addressing homelessness.

CIS’ General Counsel Kirk Mylander reflected on the significance of the decision.

“This is a victory for local governments,” he said. “The Supreme Court recognized the complexity of homelessness and reinforced the principle that these issues are best addressed at the local level.”

CIS played a pivotal role in this legal journey, partnering with highly regarded law firms to ensure Grants Pass’ case was heard and decided favorably. The dedication and expertise demonstrated by CIS and its legal team underscored our commitment to supporting members, while mitigating risks.

The Supreme Court’s decision struck down the Ninth Circuit’s sweeping interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, which had previously prohibited penalizing “involuntary” homelessness. The Court’s ruling clarified that the Eighth Amendment regulates methods of punishment rather than the status of individuals being punished. In its majority opinion, the Court emphasized the importance of leaving homelessness policy decisions to local leaders rather than federal judges.

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” the opinion stated. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”

This decision was bolstered by a record number of “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs filed in support of Grants Pass’ petition, reflecting widespread concern about the impact of Martin v. Boise. These briefs came from entities across the nation, including the National League of Cities, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, the League of California Cities, and even governors and mayors from key states and cities. Together, these voices highlighted the pressing need for clarity and local control in addressing homelessness.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals oversees legal matters for nine western states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington — plus the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Its rulings have a broad impact on cities and counties across the western United States.

According to Kirk, the Court’s decision acknowledged the real-world challenges faced by local governments.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling left many cities without enforceable regulations,” he explained. “This decision restores the ability of local officials to craft tailored solutions that balance the rights of all community members.”

The case also highlighted the collaborative efforts between CIS and its legal partners. CIS partnered with Capitol Legal Services Attorney Aaron Hisel, who has represented the City of Grants Pass since the outset of this case. His unwavering commitment to the City’s defense, paired with the strategic expertise of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a well-respected law firm, played a pivotal role in securing this landmark decision.

Aaron Hisel detailed the critical role played by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

“Gibson Dunn provided their services at a substantially discounted rate,” according to Aaron. “Their regular rates would have exceeded $1 million, but CIS negotiated an arrangement that allowed us to access top-tier representation for a fraction of the cost. It’s safe to say CIS paid less than 1/20th of their market price,” he added.

The firm’s interest in the case stemmed, in part, from its involvement in Martin v. Boise.

“This was an opportunity for them to help clarify precedent that had significant implications for local governments nationwide,” Aaron explained.

Aaron’s long-standing relationship with Grants Pass provided continuity and deep understanding throughout the legal journey, further strengthening the City’s case.

The Supreme Court’s decision has immediate implications for Oregon. Before this ruling, the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation effectively halted enforcement of anti-camping ordinances when no “adequate” shelter was available, leaving cities in a regulatory limbo. Now, local governments can operate under Oregon’s HB 3115, which requires camping regulations to be reasonable in terms of time, place, and manner. For example, cities can:

Restrict camping during traditional sleeping hours, such as from sundown to sunrise.
Prohibit camping in specific areas, such as parks, schools, and residential neighborhoods, while designating alternative locations.
Allow temporary protections against the elements, such as tents or sleeping bags, while enforcing reasonable restrictions.

“This middle-ground approach aligns with HB 3115,” Kirk noted. “It provides flexibility for local governments to address homelessness in ways that reflect their unique circumstances.”

Looking ahead, we remain steadfast in our commitment to supporting members through legal challenges and risk management initiatives.

The Grants Pass case exemplifies this dedication, as we navigated complex legal terrain while minimizing costs.

CIS Executive Director Patrick Priest emphasized this commitment: “At CIS, we stand ready to defend our members — even if it means going all the way to the Supreme Court. We’re devoted to addressing our members’ issues, ensuring that we serve their needs effectively.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not solve homelessness but empowers local governments to implement practical and tailored solutions.

As Aaron observed, “The friction between the rights of those experiencing homelessness and the responsibilities of local governments remains complex. But this decision provides much-needed clarity and tools for moving forward.”

For CIS, the journey doesn’t end with this victory. We will continue to monitor the evolving legal landscapes and support members in navigating new challenges.

The Johnson v. Grants Pass case serves as a testament to our enduring mission: to help members manage costs and mitigate risks while addressing the important needs of their communities.