Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 72

28 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

and early root in American soil’ where, to this day, a crime
ordinarily arises ‘only from concurrence of an evil-meaning
mind with an evil-doing hand.’  Morissette v. United States, 
342 U. S. 246, 251–252 (1952).”  Ibid.  Yet the law at issue 
in Robinson “was an anomaly, as it required proof of neither 
of those things.”  Ante, at 19. 

Relatedly, this Court has concluded that some vagrancy
laws  are  unconstitutionally  vague.  See,  e.g.,  Kolender  v. 
Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 361–362 (1983) (invalidating Cali-
fornia law that required people who loiter or wander on the 
street to provide identification and account for their pres-
ence); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 161–162 
(1972)  (concluding  that  vagrancy  law  employing  “ ‘archaic 
language’ ”  in  its  definition  was  “void  for  vagueness”);  ac-
cord, Desertrain v. Los Angeles, 754 F. 3d 1147, 1155–1157 
(CA9 2014) (holding that an ordinance prohibiting the use 
of a vehicle as “ ‘living quarters’ ” was void for vagueness be-
cause the ordinance did not define “living quarters”).  Other 
potentially  relevant  due  process  precedents  abound.    See, 
e.g., Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 520 (1948) (“Where
a statute is so vague as to make criminal an innocent act, a
conviction  under  it  cannot  be  sustained”);  Chicago  v.  Mo-
rales, 527 U. S. 41, 57 (1999) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (inval-
idating ordinance that failed “to distinguish between inno-
cent conduct and conduct threatening harm”).

The  Due  Process  Clause  may  well  place  constitutional 
limits on anti-homelessness ordinances.  See, e.g., Memorial 
Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 263–264 (1974) 
(considering  statute  that  denied  people  medical  care  de-
pending  on  duration  of  residency  and  concluding  that  “to 
the extent the purpose of the [statute] is to inhibit the im-
migration of indigents generally, that goal is constitution-
ally impermissible”); Pottinger v. Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551,
1580 (SD Fla. 1992) (concluding that “enforcement of laws
that prevent homeless individuals who have no place to go
from  sleeping”  might  also  unconstitutionally  “burde[n]