U.S. Supreme Court protects key flexibility for county governments responding to homelessness

Key Takeaways

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case of major significance for counties working to develop comprehensive responses to the homelessness crisis. The decision, which holds that anti-encampment ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, is a welcome affirmation of the need for local governments to have the latitude and flexibility to respond to an entrenched policy problem without interference from the federal courts. Counties welcome this ruling, which rightly recognizes the importance of local control in the response to the complex problem of homelessness. 

• County Nexus: Counties across the nation are grappling with how to respond to homelessness, investing funds in a wide range of evidence-based approaches while balancing our obligation to uphold public health and safety. Anti-encampment ordinances are an important policy tool for counties to address “encampments that pose significant health and safety risks” and to encourage their inhabitants to accept other alternatives like shelters, drug treatment programs, and mental-health facilities. 
• NACo Advocacy: Many states and local governments and their representatives, including NACo, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision banning the city of Grants Pass' anti-encampment ordinance. In a subsequent Local Government Legal Center (LGLC) amicus brief, NACo argued that if a ruling for the respondent would divert complex, highly localized policy decisions about how to respond to homelessness from the county legislature to the federal courts, with substantial financial implications for local governments and perverse incentives to invest public resources on temporary shelter beds rather than more permanent solutions. Underscoring the importance of our advocacy, the Majority opinion cites the LGLC brief in multiple instances. Learn more here.
• The Court's Ruling: The decision in Grants Pass upholds key principles of federalism, recognizing the authority of county governments to develop and implement homelessness policy that responds to the needs of our communities without interference from the federal courts. Notably, this ruling overturns the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Grants Pass as well as its earlier holding in Martin v. Boise, which created unworkable conditions for western states and counties while exposing them to high volumes of litigation.