Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

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

17 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

was found to invalidate a criminal law, the law in question 
sought  to  punish  persons  merely  for  their  need  to  eat  or
sleep, which are essential bodily functions.  This is simply 
a variation of Robinson’s command that the state identify
conduct in crafting its laws, rather than punish a person’s 
mere existence” (citation omitted)). 

C 
The Ordinances are enforced exactly as intended: to crim-
inalize the status of being homeless.  City officials sought
to use the Ordinances to drive homeless people out of town.
See supra, at 13–14.  The message to homeless residents is 
clear.  As Debra Blake, a named plaintiff who passed away
while this case was pending, see n. 1, supra, shared: 

“I  have  been  repeatedly  told  by  Grants  Pass  police
that I must ‘move along’ and that there is nowhere in 
Grants Pass that I can legally sit or rest.  I have been 
repeatedly  awakened  by  Grants  Pass  police  while 
sleeping and told that I need to get up and move.  I have 
been  told  by  Grants  Pass  police  that  I  should  leave 
town. 

Because I have no choice but to live outside and have 
no place else to go, I have gotten tickets, fines and have 
been criminally prosecuted for being homeless.”  App.
180–181. 

Debra Blake’s heartbreaking message captures the cruelty 
of criminalizing someone for their status: “I am afraid at all
times in Grants Pass that I could be arrested, ticketed and 
prosecuted for sleeping outside or for covering myself with 
a blanket to stay warm.”  Id., at 182.  So, at times, when she 
could, Blake “slept outside of the city.”  Ibid.  Blake, who 
was disabled, unemployed, and elderly, “owe[d] the City of 
Grants Pass more than $5000 in fines for crimes and viola-
tions related directly to [her] involuntary homelessness and 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  affordable  housing  or  emergency