## Facts

- Grants Pass, Oregon had more homeless individuals than available shelter beds, leaving some people with no place to sleep other than outdoors in the city’s parks, streets, or vehicles.
- The City enacted and enforced ordinances aimed at outdoor sleeping and camping, including provisions that prohibited sleeping outside with rudimentary protection such as a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box within city limits.
- Violations were generally handled through civil citations and fines that could increase with repeated violations or nonpayment.
- Accumulated violations could lead to exclusion orders (such as banning a person from certain public areas or, as described by the parties, from the city limits).
- If a person violated an exclusion order, the City could pursue criminal enforcement, including criminal trespass charges.
- Three individuals who were “involuntarily homeless” sued the City on behalf of themselves and similarly situated people, claiming the enforcement scheme violated the Eighth Amendment.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of involuntarily homeless persons and granted permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of several ordinances as applied to class members, while allowing continued enforcement of certain measures directed at preventing the establishment of encampments (including rules addressing tents in parks).
- The City appealed, challenging jurisdiction, class certification, the Eighth Amendment rulings (cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines), and the scope of the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had Article III jurisdiction (including whether the claims were moot or not redressable).
2. Whether certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of “involuntarily homeless” persons seeking injunctive relief was proper.
3. Whether enforcing Grants Pass ordinances to impose civil penalties (and escalating consequences) on involuntarily homeless people for sleeping outside with rudimentary protection, when no shelter was available, violates the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.
4. Whether the City’s fine-and-exclusion enforcement scheme raised an Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines issue.
5. Whether the permanent injunction was broader than necessary and needed narrowing.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction; plaintiffs’ claims were not moot and the requested relief could redress the alleged injury.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class of involuntarily homeless persons seeking uniform declaratory and injunctive relief.
- On the Cruel and Unusual Punishments claim, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the core ruling that the City could not enforce its anti-sleeping/anti-camping measures against involuntarily homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with basic protection (or sleeping in a car at night) when there was no other place in the City for them to go.
- The court treated the City’s civil-citation framework in light of its escalating consequences, including exclusion orders and the risk of later criminal trespass enforcement.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated parts of the permanent injunction and remanded for the district court to narrow the relief so it targeted only unconstitutional applications and did not disable enforcement more broadly than required.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ninth Circuit precedent (including Martin v. City of Boise), the Eighth Amendment forbids imposing criminal penalties for sleeping outside on public property when a person is homeless and cannot obtain shelter, because the law is then applied to unavoidable, life-sustaining conduct tied to the person’s status.
- An enforcement scheme labeled “civil” may still implicate Eighth Amendment limits when the sanctions function as punishment in operation, including when civil fines and related orders set the stage for later criminal enforcement (such as trespass prosecutions for violating exclusion orders).
- A Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate when plaintiffs seek declaratory or injunctive relief that would apply in the same way to all class members based on common questions (such as whether the City may enforce certain ordinances against involuntarily homeless persons when shelter is unavailable).
- Even when a constitutional violation is shown, injunctive relief must be tailored to the unlawful applications and should not bar enforcement in circumstances not proven unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit largely upheld the district court’s determination that Grants Pass could not penalize involuntarily homeless people for sleeping outside with rudimentary protection when no shelter was available, affirmed class certification and jurisdiction, but vacated portions of the injunction and sent the case back for a more limited remedy focused on unconstitutional enforcement.


Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 50 F.4th 787, No. 20-35752 (2022)