Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 42

2 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS v. JOHNSON 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

the light of contemporary human knowledge, a law which
made a criminal offense of . . . a disease [such as narcotics 
addiction] would doubtless be universally thought to be an
infliction  of  cruel  and  unusual  punishment  in  violation of 
the  Eighth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments.”    370  U. S.,  at 
666.  Modern public opinion is not an appropriate metric for 
interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause—
or any provision of the Constitution for that matter.

Much of the Court’s other Eighth Amendment precedents
make the same mistake.  Rather than interpret our written
Constitution,  the  Court  has  at  times  “proclaim[ed]  itself 
sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards,” Roper v. Sim-
mons, 543 U. S. 551, 608 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting), and
has set out to enforce “evolving standards of decency,” Trop 
v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion).  “In a 
system based upon constitutional and statutory text demo-
cratically  adopted,  the  concept  of ‘law’  ordinarily  signifies 
that  particular  words  have  a  fixed  meaning.”  Roper,  543 
U. S.,  at  629  (opinion  of  Scalia,  J.).    I  continue  to  believe 
that  we  should  adhere  to  the  Cruel  and  Unusual  Punish-
ments  Clause’s  fixed  meaning  in  resolving  any  challenge
brought under it. 

To  be  sure,  we  need  not  reconsider  Robinson  to  resolve 
this case.  As the Court explains, the challenged ordinances
regulate conduct, not status, and thus do not implicate Rob-
inson.  Ante, at 20–21.  Moreover, it is unclear what, if any, 
weight Robinson carries.  The Court has not once applied 
Robinson’s  interpretation  of  the  Cruel  and  Unusual  Pun-
ishments  Clause.    And,  today  the  Court  rightly  questions
the decision’s “persuasive force.”  Ante, at 20.  Still, rather 
than  let  Robinson’s  erroneous  holding  linger  in  the  back-
ground of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, we should
dispose of it once and for all.  In an appropriate case, the 
Court should certainly correct this error. 

Second, the respondents have not established that their 
claims  implicate  the  Cruel  and  Unusual  Punishments