The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether municipal ordinances criminalizing homelessness violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, in the case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Amid a national homelessness crisis exacerbated by a lack of affordable housing, the Court’s decision in the case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson will profoundly impact the rights and well-being of the hundreds of thousands of individuals without shelter in the United States.
LGBT+ people, who experience disproportionately high rates of homelessness due to discrimination and bias, will bear a significant brunt if these ordinances are upheld, more than forty groups assert in an amicus brief submitted by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The ordinances pose a particular risk to LGBT+ people, as they are more likely to be displaced, due to systemic causes detailed in the brief: family rejection, lack of safe shelters, and discrimination in schools, employment, and housing, so they punish people for their status, violating the “constitutional rights of those surviving under the pressing weight of poverty.”
“Since a disproportionately high number of unhoused people are from the LGBT+ community, this is an issue of particular importance for the organizations who joined our amicus brief,” said Chinyere Ezie, a senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the dangers posed to all unhoused people by the discriminatory ordinances at stake.”
The amicus brief, submitted by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 46 groups with operations spanning 11 states and Washington, D.C., argues that these ordinances penalize individuals for their status, violating the constitutional rights of those grappling with poverty.
The ordinances, it asserts, especially endanger LGBT+ people, who are more likely than their straight, cisgender counterparts to be unhoused due to systemic issues such as family rejection, lack of safe shelters, and discrimination across various spheres like schools, employment, and housing.
Statistics paint a stark picture of the disproportionate risks faced by LGBT+ individuals. For instance, transgender people are eight times more likely to have experienced recent homelessness compared to straight, cisgender individuals.
Homelessness among LGBT+ youth is particularly prevalent, with this group constituting 40% of all unhoused youth and 65% of youth experiencing chronic homelessness, despite comprising less than 10% of the U.S. population. LGBT+ youth of color face even higher rates of homelessness.
“Due to discrimination in multiple forms, including family rejection and discrimination in education, employment, and housing, LGBTQIA+ individuals confront heightened levels of poverty and homelessness,” noted Mikaila Hernández, a Bertha Justice Fellow and attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This reality is especially concerning for young people, who should be shielded from harm, not targeted for legal repercussions.”
The case originates from a lawsuit brought by Gloria Johnson and John Logan, two unhoused residents of Grants Pass, Oregon.
They challenge the constitutionality of five municipal ordinances subjecting involuntarily homeless individuals to fines, arrest, and potential jail time. The lawmakers supporting these laws openly acknowledge their aim to push unhoused individuals out of Grants Pass, a city of 40,000 without homeless shelters.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously sided with the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction halting enforcement of the ordinances.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on this critical issue, advocates emphasize the urgent need to protect the rights and dignity of all individuals, particularly those marginalized and disproportionately impacted by homelessness and discrimination.