The question
Whether enforcing laws that ban camping or sleeping in public places against homeless people is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
What the Court decided
The Court held that cities may enforce general bans on public camping without violating the Eighth Amendment, even against people who are homeless. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause limits what kinds of punishment may be imposed, the Court held, but does not bar a city from making it an offense to camp on public property.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment is about the kind and severity of punishment a government may impose, not about whether a given behavior may be criminalized at all. A city ordinance imposing fines or short jail terms for public camping is a familiar penalty, so enforcing it against homeless people does not violate the Clause. How to address homelessness is a policy question for elected officials.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
The dissent argued the ordinances punish homeless people for the unavoidable act of sleeping when they have nowhere else to go, which is punishment for status, and that the majority ignores the reality that these cities lack shelter space for the people they are fining and jailing.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court held that enforcing generally applicable public-camping laws does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 23-175
The Court reasoned the Eighth Amendment concerns the kind of punishment imposed, not whether conduct may be made criminal.
Source: opinion of the Court (Gorsuch, J.)
Gorsuch, J., wrote for the Court; Sotomayor, J., dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.
Source: syllabus, lineup