Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 33

28 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

Opinion of the Court 

keep a live inventory of available shelter beds.  Even so, cit-
ies  face  questions  over  which  shelter  beds  count  as  “ade-
quate” and “available” under Martin.  Id., at 617, and n. 8. 
Rather than resolve the challenges associated with defining
who qualifies as “involuntarily” homeless, these standards
more  nearly  return  us  to  them.    Is  a  bed  “available”  to  a 
smoker if the shelter requires residents to abstain from nic-
otine, as the shelter in Grants Pass does?  72 F. 4th, at 896; 
App. 39, Third Amended Complaint ¶13.  Is a bed “availa-
ble” to an atheist if the shelter includes “religious” messag-
ing?  72 F. 4th, at 877.  And how is a city to know whether
the  accommodations  it  provides  will  prove  “adequate”  in
later litigation?  920 F. 3d, at 617, n. 8.  Once more, a large 
number of cities in the Ninth Circuit tell us they have no 
way to be sure.  See, e.g., Phoenix Brief 28; San Clemente 
Brief 8–12; Brief for City of Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae 
22–23  (“What  may  be  available,  appropriate,  or  actually
beneficial to one [homeless] person, might not be so to an-
other”).

Consider  an  example.  The  city  of  Chico,  California,
thought it was complying with Martin when it constructed 
an outdoor shelter facility at its municipal airport to accom-
modate its homeless population.  Warren v. Chico, 2021 WL 
2894648, *3 (ED Cal., July 8, 2021).  That shelter, we are 
told, included “protective fencing, large water totes, hand-
washing stations, portable toilets, [and] a large canopy for 
shade.”  Brief for City of Chico as Amicus Curiae on Pet. for 
Cert. 16.  Still, a district court enjoined the city from enforc-
ing its public-camping ordinance.  Why?  Because, in that 
court’s view, “appropriate” shelter requires “ ‘indoo[r],’ ” not
outdoor,  spaces.  Warren,  2021  WL  2894648,  *3  (quoting 
Martin, 920 F. 3d, at 617).  One federal court in Los Angeles
ruled, during the COVID pandemic, that “adequate” shelter 
must also include nursing staff, testing for communicable 
diseases, and on-site security, among other things.  See LA 
Alliance for Hum. Rights v. Los Angeles, 2020 WL 2512811,