Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

30 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

Opinion of the Court 

Doubtless, the Ninth Circuit’s intervention in Martin was 
well-intended.  But since the trial court entered its injunc-
tion against Grants Pass, the city shelter reports that utili-
zation of its resources has fallen by roughly 40 percent.  See 
Brief for Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission as Amicus Cu-
riae  4–5.  Many  other  cities  offer  similar  accounts  about
their experiences after Martin, telling us the decision has
made it more difficult, not less, to help the homeless accept 
shelter off city streets.  See Part I–B, supra (recounting ex-
amples).  Even when “policymakers would prefer to invest 
in more permanent” programs and policies designed to ben-
efit  homeless  and  other  citizens,  Martin  has  forced  these 
“overwhelmed jurisdictions to concentrate public resources
on temporary shelter beds.”  Cities Brief 25; see Oregon Cit-
ies Brief 17–20; States Brief 16–17.  As a result, cities re-
port, Martin has undermined their efforts to balance con-
flicting public needs and mired them in litigation at a time 
when  the  homelessness  crisis  calls  for  action.  See  States 
Brief 16–17. 

All told, the Martin experiment is perhaps just what Jus-
tice Marshall anticipated ones like it would be.  The Eighth
Amendment provides no guidance to “confine” judges in de-
ciding  what  conduct  a  State  or  city  may  or  may  not  pro-
scribe.  Powell, 392  U. S., at 534.  Instead of encouraging 
“productive  dialogue”  and  “experimentation”  through  our
democratic  institutions,  courts  have  frozen  in  place  their
own “formulas” by “fiat.”  Id., at 534, 537.  Issued by federal
courts  removed  from  realities  on  the  ground,  those  rules 
have  produced  confusion.    And  they  have  interfered  with 
“essential  considerations  of  federalism,”  taking  from  the 
people  and  their  elected  leaders  difficult  questions  tradi-
tionally “thought to be the[ir] province.”  Id., at 535–536.7 
—————— 

7 The  dissent  suggests  we  cite  selectively  to  the  amici  and  “see  only
what  [we]  wan[t]”  in  their  briefs.    Post,  at  24.  In  fact,  all  the  States, 
cities, and counties listed above (n. 3, supra) asked us to review this case.
Among them all, the dissent purports to identify just two public officials