SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This is not a case about regulating homeless encampments. Instead, given the breadth of the challenged municipal ordinances, this case presents a critical issue about the criminalization of poverty: whether people experiencing involuntary homelessness in a city with no shelter beds can be punished with fines, fees, and criminal penalties if they sleep in public areas with rudimentary protection from the elements such as pillows and blankets—the unavoidable consequence of being without a home. In a country experiencing record rates of homelessness due to an affordable housing crisis and rising costs occasioned by public policy failures, the answer should be obvious. While policy solutions are needed to resolve our homelessness crisis, they cannot violate the constitutional rights of those surviving under the pressing weight of poverty.

The Eighth Amendment applies to a range of penalties and limits the conduct that can be criminalized in the first place. Enforcing the municipal ordinances at issue would constitute cruel and unusual punishment for three reasons: (1) status crimes are categorically cruel and unusual under Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) and this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence; (2) local governments cannot circumvent Robinson through multistep civil and criminal statutory schemes that punish someone for an aspect of their status; and (3) criminalizing poverty conflicts with contemporary standards of decency. When analyzing what penalties can be imposed under the Eighth Amendment, this Court has stressed that “the sanction imposed cannot be so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering.” The lack of penological justification in this case cannot be more glaring. As legislators in Grants Pass have openly acknowledged, the aim of the ordinances is to banish poor people within city limits—i.e. “to make it uncomfortable enough for [unhoused persons] in our city so [sic] they will want to move on down the road.”4 A desire to make life as unpleasant as possible for people who already lack a safe place to sleep at night lacks a legitimate penological justification and “results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering” condemned by this Court.

Although Petitioner and its amici assert that affirming the lower court’s holding would leave local and state officials helpless to address homelessness, these assertions are wrong. Affirmance only prevents officials from violating the constitutional rights of those experiencing homelessness through a scheme of financial and criminal punishment. Local and state officials can still address homelessness through policy choices that do not punish individuals for their involuntary status contrary to Robinson, which is entitled to stare decisis. This case does not extend Robinson beyond its narrow holding, and falls squarely within the judicially manageable limits on criminalization of homeless individuals created by Robinson and its progeny Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968).

For the LGBTQI+ community in particular, whom amici represent, the impact of ordinances like the ones at bar are dire. Members of the LGBTQI+ community already experience homelessness at staggering rates due to discrimination in education, employment, and housing, among others—fueling a pernicious cycle of poverty, homelessness, and incarceration. It does not have to be this way. The heightened societal challenges faced by LGBTQI+ community members experiencing homelessness should not be exacerbated by policy choices which violate their constitutional right to not be criminalized on the basis of their status as homeless individuals.

Accordingly, amici respectfully request that this Court affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision that “it is an Eighth Amendment violation to criminally punish involuntarily homeless persons for sleeping in public if there are no other public areas or appropriate shelters where those individuals can sleep,” Pet. App. 19a (citation omitted), consistent with the Court’s sound jurisprudence and contemporary standards of decency.

Summary of Argument

This case addresses a fundamental question concerning the criminalization of poverty, rather than merely the regulation of homeless encampments. The central issue is whether individuals experiencing involuntary homelessness, in a city lacking adequate shelter options, can face fines and criminal penalties for sleeping in public spaces with minimal protection like blankets and pillows. This situation represents an unavoidable consequence of lacking a permanent home. In an era marked by increasing homelessness due to housing shortages and rising costs, it is argued that such punitive measures are unjust. While policy solutions are essential for addressing the homelessness crisis, these solutions must not infringe upon the constitutional rights of those living in poverty.

The Eighth Amendment limits the types of penalties that can be imposed and restricts the conduct that can be deemed criminal. The enforcement of the municipal ordinances in question would constitute cruel and unusual punishment for three main reasons. First, punishing individuals for their status, such as being involuntarily homeless, is considered cruel and unusual under established legal precedent. Second, local governments cannot circumvent this principle through multi-step legal processes that ultimately penalize an aspect of a person's status. Third, criminalizing poverty conflicts with contemporary standards of decency. Legal analysis has consistently emphasized that penalties imposed must not be devoid of legitimate justification, resulting in needless suffering. The lack of justification is evident in this instance, as some city officials have openly stated the ordinances aim to make life uncomfortable enough to encourage unhoused individuals to leave the city. Such an intent, to make life unpleasant for those already without shelter, lacks legitimate justification and leads to gratuitous suffering.

Claims that upholding the lower court's decision would hinder local and state officials from addressing homelessness are unfounded. An affirmation would only prevent officials from violating the constitutional rights of individuals experiencing homelessness through financial and criminal punishment schemes. Local and state authorities retain the ability to address homelessness through policy initiatives that do not penalize individuals for their involuntary status, consistent with existing legal frameworks. This case does not expand established legal principles but aligns directly with the judicially manageable limits on the criminalization of homeless individuals.

For specific vulnerable groups, such as the LGBTQI+ community, the impact of such ordinances is particularly severe. Members of this community experience disproportionately high rates of homelessness due to systemic discrimination in areas like education, employment, and housing. This perpetuates a cycle of poverty, homelessness, and incarceration. These challenges should not be compounded by policies that violate their constitutional right to not be criminalized based on their status as homeless individuals.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Court affirm the lower court’s ruling, which holds that criminally punishing involuntarily homeless persons for sleeping in public without alternative shelter options available constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. This decision would align with the Court's established jurisprudence and contemporary standards of decency.

Summary of Argument

This legal case is not primarily about regulating homeless encampments. Instead, due to the broad scope of the city ordinances challenged, it raises a significant question about the criminalization of poverty. The central issue is whether people experiencing homelessness, without access to shelter beds, can be punished with fines and criminal charges for sleeping in public areas with basic items like pillows and blankets. Such actions are an unavoidable outcome of having nowhere to live. At a time when homelessness is increasing due to an affordable housing crisis and rising costs caused by public policy failures, the answer is evident. While new policies are needed to solve the homelessness crisis, these solutions cannot violate the constitutional rights of those living in poverty.

The Eighth Amendment applies to various punishments and limits what actions can be made illegal in the first place. Enforcing the city ordinances in question would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for three main reasons. First, making a person's status a crime is fundamentally cruel and unusual, as established by prior court decisions. Second, local governments cannot bypass this principle through multi-step civil and criminal processes that punish someone for an aspect of their status. Third, criminalizing poverty conflicts with contemporary standards of decency. When examining what penalties are allowed under the Eighth Amendment, the Court has emphasized that "the sanction imposed cannot be so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering." In this case, the lack of a proper justification for punishment is very clear. As city lawmakers have openly admitted, the goal of these ordinances is to force poor people out of the city—to "make it uncomfortable enough... so they will want to move on down the road." A desire to make life as unpleasant as possible for people who already lack a safe place to sleep at night lacks a legitimate justification for punishment and leads to the "needless suffering" that the Court has condemned.

Although the petitioner and its supporters claim that upholding the lower court's decision would prevent local and state officials from addressing homelessness, these claims are incorrect. Affirming the decision only stops officials from violating the constitutional rights of those experiencing homelessness through financial and criminal punishment schemes. Local and state officials can still address homelessness through policy choices that do not punish individuals for their involuntary status, consistent with established legal principles. This case does not expand the scope of previous rulings but falls directly within the existing judicial limits on criminalizing homeless individuals.

For the LGBTQI+ community, whom the supporters represent, the impact of ordinances like those in question is severe. Members of the LGBTQI+ community already experience homelessness at significantly higher rates due to discrimination in areas like education, employment, and housing. This fuels a harmful cycle of poverty, homelessness, and incarceration. This situation does not have to continue. The increased challenges faced by LGBTQI+ community members experiencing homelessness should not be made worse by policy choices that violate their constitutional right not to be criminalized based on their status as homeless individuals.

Therefore, the supporters respectfully request that this Court affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision. This decision states that it is an Eighth Amendment violation to criminally punish involuntarily homeless persons for sleeping in public if there are no other public areas or appropriate shelters where those individuals can sleep. This aligns with the Court’s established legal principles and contemporary standards of decency.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case is not about regulating homeless camps. Instead, given how broad the challenged city rules are, it raises a crucial question about making poverty a crime. It asks if people who are homeless against their will in a city with no shelter beds can be fined or face criminal charges for sleeping in public with basic items like pillows and blankets. This is the unavoidable result of having no home. In a country facing record homelessness due to a lack of affordable housing and rising costs from failed public policies, the answer should be clear. While policy solutions are needed to solve the homelessness crisis, they cannot violate the constitutional rights of those living in poverty.

The Eighth Amendment limits punishments and what actions can be made illegal. Enforcing the city rules in question would be cruel and unusual punishment for three main reasons: (1) Punishing someone for their status, like being homeless, is cruel and unusual under the Robinson v. California ruling and the Court’s past decisions on the Eighth Amendment. (2) Local governments cannot get around this by using multi-step civil and criminal laws that punish someone for an aspect of their homelessness. (3) Making poverty a crime conflicts with today's standards of fairness. When considering what punishments can be given under the Eighth Amendment, this Court has stressed that "the sanction imposed cannot be so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering." The lack of a proper reason for punishment in this case is obvious. As lawmakers in Grants Pass have openly admitted, the goal of the rules is to force poor people out of the city. Their aim is "to make it uncomfortable enough for [unhoused persons] in our city so [sic] they will want to move on down the road." Wanting to make life as unpleasant as possible for people who already lack a safe place to sleep has no legitimate reason for punishment and causes "gratuitous infliction of suffering," which this Court has condemned.

The city and its supporters claim that upholding the lower court’s decision would leave local and state officials helpless to address homelessness. These claims are incorrect. Affirming the decision only prevents officials from violating the constitutional rights of people experiencing homelessness through fines and criminal punishment. Local and state officials can still address homelessness through policy choices that do not punish individuals for their involuntary status, which would go against the Robinson ruling, a decision that should be followed. This case does not stretch the Robinson ruling beyond its narrow scope and fits within the legal limits on criminalizing homeless individuals set by Robinson and its related case, Powell v. Texas.

For the LGBTQI+ community in particular, who are represented by the supporters of this argument, the impact of rules like these is severe. Members of the LGBTQI+ community already experience homelessness at alarming rates due to discrimination in education, employment, and housing, among other areas. This fuels a harmful cycle of poverty, homelessness, and incarceration. It does not have to be this way. The greater societal challenges faced by LGBTQI+ community members experiencing homelessness should not be made worse by policy choices that violate their constitutional right not to be punished simply for being homeless.

Therefore, supporters of this argument respectfully ask this Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit court’s decision. That decision stated it is an Eighth Amendment violation to criminally punish people who are homeless against their will for sleeping in public if there are no other public areas or suitable shelters where those individuals can sleep. This aligns with the Court’s past legal decisions and today's standards of fairness.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case is not just about rules for homeless camps. It is about whether cities can punish people who have no home and nowhere else to sleep. If a city has no shelters, should people be fined or arrested for sleeping outside with a blanket? Many people are homeless because housing is too expensive. We need ways to help people without homes, but these plans must also respect their basic rights.

The Eighth Amendment stops the government from giving out punishments that are too harsh or unfair. Punishing people for being homeless in this way would be cruel and unfair. This is for three main reasons:

1. It is wrong to punish someone just for their situation, like being homeless.

2. Cities cannot get around this rule by using different laws to punish people for their situation.

3. Punishing poor people goes against what most people today think is right and fair.

The Court has said that punishments should have a good reason and not just cause suffering for no purpose. In this case, there is no good reason. Lawmakers in Grants Pass even said they want to make life so hard for people without homes that they leave the city. Making life harder for people who already have nowhere safe to sleep is not a good reason and just causes needless suffering.

Some groups say that if the court agrees with the lower court, cities and states will not be able to help with homelessness. This is not true. This ruling only stops officials from breaking the basic rights of people without homes by fining or arresting them. Cities and states can still work to solve homelessness using other plans that do not punish people just for their situation. This decision does not change past rulings; it simply follows them.

These kinds of laws are especially bad for people in the LGBTQI+ community. Many LGBTQI+ people become homeless more often because of unfair treatment in school, jobs, and housing. This can lead to a terrible cycle of being poor, then homeless, then arrested. It does not have to be like this. Cities should not make it even harder for LGBTQI+ people without homes by making laws that punish them just for being homeless.

Therefore, the groups supporting this side ask the Court to agree with the decision that says: it is wrong to punish people who are homeless and have to sleep outside if there are no shelters or other places for them to go. This decision would follow fair legal ideas and what most people today believe is right.