Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

26 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Court’s decision today as closing the door on such claims.6 

A 
The Court today does not decide whether the Ordinances
are valid under a new Oregon law that codifies Martin.  In 
2021, Oregon passed a law that constrains the ability of mu-
nicipalities  to  punish  homeless  residents  for  public  sleep-
ing.  “Any city or county law that regulates the acts of sit-
ting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on
public  property  that  is  open  to  the  public  must  be  objec-
tively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards
to  persons  experiencing  homelessness.”  Ore.  Rev.  Stat. 
§195.530(2).    The  law  also  grants  persons  “experiencing
homelessness” a cause of action to “bring suit for injunctive
or declaratory relief to challenge the objective reasonable-
ness” of an ordinance.  §195.530(4).  This law was meant to 
“ ‘ensure  that  individuals  experiencing  homelessness  are 
protected  from  fines  or  arrest  for  sleeping  or  camping  on 
public property when there are no other options.’ ”  Brief in 
Opposition 35 (quoting Speaker T. Kotek, Hearing on H. B.
3115  before  the  House  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  2021
Reg. Sess. (Ore., Mar. 9, 2021)).  The panel below already
concluded  that  “[t]he  city  ordinances  addressed  in  Grants 
Pass will be superseded, to some extent,” by this new law. 
72  F.  4th,  at  924,  n. 7.    Courts  may  need  to  determine
whether and how the new law limits the City’s enforcement
of its Ordinances. 

B 
The Court today also does not decide whether the Ordi-
nances  violate  the  Eighth  Amendment’s  Excessive  Fines
Clause.  That  Clause  separately  “limits  the  government’s 

—————— 

6 The  majority  does  not  address  whether  the  Eighth  Amendment  re-
quires a more particularized inquiry into the circumstances of the indi-
viduals subject to the City’s ordinances.  See Brief for United States as 
Amicus Curiae 27.  I therefore do not discuss that issue here.