Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 17

12 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

Opinion of the Court 

homeless whenever possible.  Id., at 153, ¶428.3.1 

Still,  shortly  after  the  panel  decision  in  Martin,  two 
homeless individuals, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, filed 
suit  challenging  the  city’s  public-camping  laws.    App.  37, 
Third  Amended  Complaint  ¶¶6–7.    They  claimed,  among 
other things, that the city’s ordinances violated the Eighth
Amendment’s  Cruel  and  Unusual  Punishments  Clause. 
Id., at 51, ¶66.  And they sought to pursue their claim on 
behalf of a class encompassing “all involuntarily homeless
people living in Grants Pass.”  Id., at 48, ¶52.2 

The district court certified the class action and enjoined 
the city from enforcing its public-camping laws against the
homeless.    While  Ms.  Johnson  and  Mr.  Logan  generally 
sleep in their vehicles, the court held, they could adequately 
represent the class, for sleeping in a vehicle can sometimes 
count  as  unlawful  “ ‘camping’ ”  under  the  relevant  ordi-
nances.  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  219a  (quoting  Grants  Pass
Municipal Code §5.61.010).  And, the court found, everyone 
—————— 

1 The dissent cites minutes from a community roundtable meeting to 
suggest  that  officials  in  Grants  Pass  harbored  only  punitive  motives 
when adopting their camping ban.  Post, at 13–14 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, 
J.).  But the dissent tells at best half the story about that meeting.  In 
his opening remarks, the Mayor stressed that the city’s goal was to “find 
a balance between providing the help [homeless] people need and not en-
abling . . . aggressive negative behavior” some community members had
experienced.  App. 112.  And, by all accounts, the “purpose” of the meet-
ing was to “develo[p ] strategies to . . . connect [homeless] people to ser-
vices.”  Ibid.  The city manager and others explained that the city was 
dealing with problems of “harassment” and “defecation in public places”
by  those  who  seemingly  “do  not  want  to  receive  services.”    Id.,  at  113, 
118–120.    At  the  same  time,  they  celebrated  “the  strong  commitment” 
from “faith-based entities” and a “huge number of people” in the city, who 
have “come together for projects” to support the homeless, including by 
securing “funding for a sobering center.”  Id., at 115, 123. 

2 Another named plaintiff, Debra Blake, passed away while this case
was pending in the Ninth Circuit, and her claims are not before us.  72 
F. 4th 868, 880, n. 12 (2023).  Before us, the city does not dispute that
the remaining named plaintiffs face a credible threat of sanctions under
its ordinances.