Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–175 
_________________ 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON, PETITIONER v. 
GLORIA JOHNSON, ET AL., ON BEHALF 
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS 
SIMILARLY SITUATED 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 28, 2024] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Many cities across the American West face a homeless-
ness crisis.  The causes are varied and complex, the appro-
priate  public  policy  responses  perhaps  no  less  so.    Like 
many local governments, the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, 
has pursued a multifaceted approach.  Recently, it adopted 
various  policies  aimed  at  “protecting  the  rights,  dignity[,]
and  private  property  of  the  homeless.”    App.  152.  It  ap-
pointed  a  “homeless  community  liaison”  officer  charged 
with ensuring the homeless receive information about “as-
sistance  programs  and  other  resources”  available  to  them
through the city and its local shelter.  Id., at 152–153; Brief 
for Grants  Pass Gospel Rescue Mission as Amicus Curiae 
2–3.  And  it  adopted  certain  restrictions  against  encamp-
ments on public property.  App. 155–156.  The Ninth Cir-
cuit, however, held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and
Unusual  Punishments  Clause  barred  that  last  measure. 
With  support  from  States  and  cities  across  the  country,
Grants Pass urged this Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s 
decision.  We take up that task now.