Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

31 

Opinion of the Court 

E 
Rather than address what we have actually said, the dis-
sent accuses us of extending to local governments an “un-
fettered freedom to punish,” post, at 25, and stripping away
any protections “the Constitution” has against “criminaliz-
ing sleeping,” post, at 5.  “Either stay awake,” the dissent 
warns,  “or  be  arrested.”    Post,  at  2.  That  is  gravely  mis-
taken.  We hold nothing of the sort.  As we have stressed, 
cities  and  States  are  not  bound  to  adopt  public-camping
laws.  They may also choose to narrow such laws (as Oregon 
itself has recently).  Beyond all that, many substantive le-
gal protections and provisions of the Constitution may have
important roles to play when States and cities seek to en-
force their laws against the homeless.  See Parts II–A, II– 
C, supra.  The only question we face is whether one specific
provision of the Constitution—the Cruel and Unusual Pun-
ishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment—prohibits the
enforcement of public-camping laws. 

Nor does the dissent meaningfully engage with the rea-
sons we have offered for our conclusion on that question.  It 
claims that we “gratuitously” treat Robinson “as an outlier.” 
Post, at 12, and n. 2.  But the dissent does not dispute that 

—————— 
and two cities that, according to the dissent, support its view.  Post, at 
24–25.  But even among that select group, the dissent overlooks the fact 
that each expresses strong dissatisfaction with how Martin has been ap-
plied in practice.  See San Francisco Brief 15, 26 (“[T]he Ninth Circuit 
and  its  lower  courts  have repeatedly  misapplied  and  overextended  the
Eighth Amendment” and “hamstrung San Francisco’s balanced approach
to addressing the homelessness crisis”); Brief for City of Los Angeles as 
Amicus Curiae 6 (“[T]he sweeping rationale in Martin . . . calls into ques-
tion whether cities can enforce public health and safety laws”); California
Governor Brief 3 (“In the wake of Martin, lower courts have blocked ef-
forts  to  clear  encampments  while  micromanaging  what  qualifies  as  a 
suitable offer of shelter”).  And for all the reasons we have explored and 
so  many  other  cities  have  suggested,  we see  no  principled  basis  under
the  Eighth  Amendment  for  federal  judges  to  administer  anything  like 
Martin.