City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)
The case involves the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, and its laws restricting public camping. The city's laws prohibit activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. Violations can result in fines and, in the case of multiple violations, imprisonment. A group of homeless individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the city, arguing that these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, citing a previous Ninth Circuit decision, Martin v. Boise, which held that cities cannot enforce public camping ordinances against homeless individuals when the number of homeless individuals exceeds the number of available shelter beds.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, leading to the city's appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment focuses on the punishment a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place. The Court also noted that the punishments imposed by the city of Grants Pass, such as fines and temporary bans from public parks, did not qualify as cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON v. JOHNSON et al., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 23–175. Argued April 22, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024
Grants Pass, Oregon, is home to roughly 38,000 people, about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day. Like many local governments across the Nation, Grants Pass has public-camping laws that restrict encampments on public property. The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. See §§5.61.030, 6.46.090(A)–(B). Initial violations can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment. In a prior decision, Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause bars cities from enforcing public-camping ordinances like these against homeless individuals whenever the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds. 920 F.3d 584, 617. After Martin, suits against Western cities like Grants Pass proliferated.
Plaintiffs (respondents here) filed a putative class action on behalf of homeless people living in Grants Pass, claiming that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court certified the class and entered a Martin injunction prohibiting Grants Pass from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals in the city. App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a–183a. Applying Martin’s reasoning, the district court found everyone without shelter in Grants Pass was “involuntarily homeless” because the city’s total homeless population outnumbered its “practically available” shelter beds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 179a, 216a. The beds at Grants Pass’s charity-run shelter did not qualify as “available” in part because that shelter has rules requiring residents to abstain from smoking and to attend religious services. App. to Pet. for Cert. 179a–180a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Martin injunction in relevant part. 72 F. 4th 868, 874–896. Grants Pass filed a petition for certiorari. Many States, cities, and counties from across the Ninth Circuit urged the Court to grant review to assess Martin.
Held: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Pp. 15–35.
(a) The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment” a government may “impos[e] for the violation of criminal statutes.” Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 531–532 (plurality opinion). It was adopted to ensure that the new Nation would never resort to certain “formerly tolerated” punishments considered “cruel” because they were calculated to “ ‘superad[d]’ ” “ ‘terror, pain, or disgrace,’ ” and considered “unusual” because, by the time of the Amendment’s adoption, they had “long fallen out of use.” Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U. S 119, 130. All that would seem to make the Eighth Amendment a poor foundation on which to rest the kind of decree the plaintiffs seek in this case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place. Powell, 392 U. S., at 531–532.
The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual. The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders, and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order. See Ore. Rev. Stat. §§164.245, 161.615(3). Such punishments do not qualify as cruel because they are not designed to “superad[d]” “terror, pain, or disgrace.” Bucklew, 587 U. S., at 130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor are they unusual, because similarly limited fines and jail terms have been and remain among “the usual mode[s]” for punishing criminal offenses throughout the country. Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475, 480. Indeed, cities and States across the country have long employed similar punishments for similar offenses. Pp. 15–17.
(b) Plaintiffs do not meaningfully dispute that, on its face, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not speak to questions like what a State may criminalize or how it may go about securing a conviction. Like the Ninth Circuit in Martin, plaintiffs point to Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, as a notable exception. In Robinson, the Court held that under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, California could not enforce a law providing that “‘[n]o person shall . . . be addicted to the use of narcotics.’” Id., at 660, n 1. While California could not make “the ‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense,” id., at 666, the Court emphasized that it did not mean to cast doubt on the States’ “broad power” to prohibit behavior even by those, like the defendant, who suffer from addiction. Id., at 664, 667–668. The problem, as the Court saw it, was that California’s law made the status of being an addict a crime. Id., at 666–667 The Court read the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause (in a way unprecedented in 1962) to impose a limit on what a State may criminalize. In dissent, Justice White lamented that the majority had embraced an “application of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ so novel that” it could not possibly be “ascribe[d] to the Framers of the Constitution.” 370 U. S., at 689. The Court has not applied Robinson in that way since.
Whatever its persuasive force as an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, Robinson cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit’s Martin project. Robinson expressly recognized the “broad power” States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws, stressing that they may criminalize knowing or intentional drug use even by those suffering from addiction. 370 U. S., at 664, 666. The Court held that California’s statute offended the Eighth Amendment only because it criminalized addiction as a status. Ibid.
Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 159. Because the public-camping laws in this case do not criminalize status, Robinson is not implicated. Pp. 17–21.
(c) Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids. See Brief for Respondents 24–25, 29, 32. The Ninth Circuit pursued this line of thinking below and in Martin, but this Court already rejected it in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514. In Powell, the Court confronted a defendant who had been convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime to “ ‘get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place.’ ” Id., at 517 (plurality opinion). Like the plaintiffs here, Powell argued that his drunkenness was an “‘involuntary’” byproduct of his status as an alcoholic. Id., at 533. The Court did not agree that Texas’s law effectively criminalized Powell’s status as an alcoholic. Writing for a plurality, Justice Marshall observed that Robinson’s “very small” intrusion “into the substantive criminal law” prevents States only from enforcing laws that criminalize “a mere status.” Id., at 532–533. It does nothing to curtail a State’s authority to secure a conviction when “the accused has committed some act . . . society has an interest in preventing.” Id., at 533. That remains true, Justice Marshall continued, even if the defendant’s conduct might, “in some sense” be described as “ ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by’” a particular status. Ibid.
This case is no different. Just as in Powell, plaintiffs here seek to extend Robinson’s rule beyond laws addressing “mere status” to laws addressing actions that, even if undertaken with the requisite mens rea, might “in some sense” qualify as “ ‘involuntary.’ ” And as in Powell, the Court can find nothing in the Eighth Amendment permitting that course. Instead, a variety of other legal doctrines and constitutional provisions work to protect those in the criminal justice system from a conviction. Pp. 21–24.
(d) Powell not only declined to extend Robinson to “involuntary” acts but also stressed the dangers of doing so. Extending Robinson to cover involuntary acts would, Justice Marshall observed, effectively “impe[l]” this Court “into defining” something akin to a new “insanity test in constitutional terms.” Powell, 392 U. S., at 536. That is because an individual like the defendant in Powell does not dispute that he has committed an otherwise criminal act with the requisite mens rea, yet he seeks to be excused from “moral accountability” because of his “‘condition. ’” Id., at 535–536. Instead, Justice Marshall reasoned, such matters should be left for resolution through the democratic process, and not by “freez[ing]” any particular, judicially preferred approach “into a rigid constitutional mold.” Id., at 537. The Court echoed that last point in Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. 271, in which the Court stressed that questions about whether an individual who committed a proscribed act with the requisite mental state should be “reliev[ed of] responsibility,” id., at 283, due to a lack of “moral culpability,” id., at 286, are generally best resolved by the people and their elected representatives.
Though doubtless well intended, the Ninth Circuit’s Martin experiment defied these lessons. Answers to questions such as what constitutes “involuntarily” homelessness or when a shelter is “practically available” cannot be found in the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Nor do federal judges enjoy any special competence to provide them. Cities across the West report that the Ninth Circuit’s involuntariness test has created intolerable uncertainty for them. By extending Robinson beyond the narrow class of pure status crimes, the Ninth Circuit has created a right that has proven “impossible” for judges to delineate except “by fiat.” Powell, 392 U. S., at 534. As Justice Marshall anticipated in Powell, the Ninth Circuit’s rules have produced confusion and they have interfered with “essential considerations of federalism,” by taking from the people and their elected leaders difficult questions traditionally “thought to be the[ir] province.” Id., at 535–536. Pp. 24–34.
(e) Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. The question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370 U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting). The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy. Pp. 34–35.
72 F. 4th 868, reversed and remanded.
Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined.
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined. |
Argued. For petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of City of Grants Pass submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. |
Reply of petitioner City of Grants Pass filed. (Distributed) |
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 6, 2024. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Amicus brief of Criminal Law and Punishment Scholars submitted. |
Amicus brief of 57 SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WITH PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON HOMELESSNESS submitted. |
Amicus brief of MATTHEW DOHERTY, SHAUN DONOVAN, FRED KARNAS, AND BARBARA POPPE submitted. |
Amicus brief of Direct Services Providers submitted. |
Amicus brief of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, and National Low Income Housing Coalition submitted. |
Amicus brief of Fund for Empowerment submitted. |
Amicus brief of OREGON FOOD BANK, CASCADE AIDS PROJECT, HYGIENE4ALL, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE OF TENANTS, ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF OREGON, MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, PARTNERS FOR A HUNGER-FREE OREGON, PDX SAINTS LOVE, ROGUE RETREAT, ROSE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SISTERS OF THE ROAD, SPRINGFIELD EUGENE TENANT ASSOCIATION, SQUAREONE VILLAGES, STREET BOOKS, WELCOME HOME COALITION submitted. |
Amicus brief of Formerly Incarcerated, Convicted People and Families Movement, The Shriver Center on Poverty Law, and National Consumer Law Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors William P. Quigley, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as Amicus Curiae submitted. |
Amicus brief of Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Psychiatric Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association for Rural Mental Health, National Association of Social Workers, and The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Women's Shelter Network, Inc. and National Organization for Women Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Safety Net Project of the Urban Justice Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of Maryland, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Current U.N. Special Rapporteurs submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, UCLA Veterans’ Legal Clinic and 43 Other Veterans’ Service Providers submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Civil Liberties Union and Nineteen Affiliates submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Congressional Amici Curiae submitted. |
Amicus brief of Juvenile Law Center, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., and 223 Experts on Unhoused Youth submitted. |
Amicus brief of Fines and Fees Justice Center, Rutherford Institute, and Street Democracy submitted. |
Amicus brief of The National Homelessness Law Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Amici Curiae STRONGHEARTS NATIVE HELPLINE AND ADDITIONAL TRIBAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Oregon Food Bank, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Corporation for Supportive Housing, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Alliance to End Homelessness, Funders Together to End Homelessness, and Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Better Days Ahead Outreach Inc.; Homeless Advocacy Project; Regional Housing Legal Services; Morgantown RAMP; Project Rainbow; Kanawha Valley Collective; and SOAR submitted. |
Amicus brief of The National Police Accountability Project and The Law Enforcement Action Partnership submitted. |
Amicus brief of Public Health Professionals and Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Emory Civil Rights Society submitted. |
Amicus brief of Kairos Center for Religions, Rights and Social Justice and Other Religious Organizations submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Alliance to End Homelessness, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of StrongHearts Native Helpline, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Matthew Doherty, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Fines and Fees Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Formerly Incarcerated, Convicted People and Families Movement, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Corporation for Supportive Housing, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of State of Maryland, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of 57 Social Scientists with Published Research on Homelessness filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of The National Police Accountability Project, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, UCLA Veterans’ Legal Clinic and 43 Other Veterans’ Service Providers filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Congressional Amici Curiae filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Safety Net Project of the Urban Justice Center filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Current U.N. Special Rapporteurs filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Better Days Ahead Outreach Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Professors William P. Quigley, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Emory Civil Rights Society filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Public Health Professionals and Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Kairos Center for Religions, Rights and Social Justice, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Women's Shelter Network, Inc, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Services Providers filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law and Punishment Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and Nineteen Affiliates filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The National Homelessness Law Center filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Psychiatric Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Fund for Empowerment filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of The Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Local Progress Impact Lab and 156 Current and Former Local Elected Officials submitted. |
Amicus brief of Advocates for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence submitted. |
Amicus brief of Advocates for Empowerment CA submitted. |
Amicus brief of Current & Former San Francisco Officials and Civic Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Western Regional Advocacy Project submitted. |
Amicus brief of Los Angeles Catholic Worker, CANGRESS, Venice Justice Committee, Inner City Law Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Current & Former San Francisco Officials and Civic Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles Catholic Worker, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Western Regional Advocacy Project filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Advocates for Empowerment CA filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Local Progress Impact Lab, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Advocates for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. |
Brief of Gloria Johnson, et al. submitted. |
CIRCULATED |
Brief of respondents Gloria Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of National Coalition for Men filed. |
Amicus brief of National Coalition for Men submitted. |
Amicus brief of Oregon Quakers: The South Mountain Friends Meeting And The Multnomah Monthly Meeting; Daniel T. Satterberg, King County Prosecuting Attorney (Retired); Richard Harruff, M.D., Ph.D., Former Chief Medical Examiner Of The Seattle/King County Medical Examiner’s Office; The Seattle/King County Coalition On Homelessness; And The Women’s Housing, Equality And Enhancement League (Wheel) submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Oregon Quakers, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of League of Oregon Cities et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Thirteen California Cities submitted. |
Amicus brief of Venice Stakeholders Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission submitted. |
Amicus brief of Bay Area Council et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Members of Congress submitted. |
Amicus brief of Cicero Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of California submitted. |
Amicus brief of County of Los Angeles submitted. |
Amicus brief of LONANG Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Pacific Research Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Local Government Legal Center, the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, North Dakota League of Cities, Cities of Albuquerque, Anaheim, Anchorage, Colorado Springs, Henderson, Lake Oswego, Las Vegas, Redondo Beach, Sacramento, Seattle, and Topeka, the City and County of Honolulu, and Louisville-Jefferson County Metro submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Tiana Tozer, Philip Rhodes, Barbara Jacobsen, Dane Southard, Lorien Ilena Welchoff, Pauline Long, Mark Barnhill, Steve Jackson, Keith Martin and Steven Rebischke filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and Central City Association of Los Angeles filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and Retail Industry Leaders Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of California Governor Gavin Newsom in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of Professor John F. Stinneford submitted. |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer filed. |
Amicus brief of City of Phoenix & the League of Arizona Cities and Towns submitted. |
Amicus brief of City of Los Angeles submitted. |
Amicus brief of Manhattan Institute, Stephen Eide, and Judge Glock submitted. |
Amicus brief of City of Chico submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty submitted. |
Amicus brief of Tiana Tozer, Philip Rhodes, Barbara Jacobsen, Dane Southard, Lorien Ilena Welchoff, Pauline Long, Mark Barnhill, Steve Jackson, Keith Martin and Steven Rebischke submitted. |
Amicus brief of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona State Senate Warren Petersen submitted. |
Amicus brief of League of Oregon Cities et al. not accepted for filing.(Corrected verison to be submitted) (March 06, 2024) |
Amicus brief of Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and Central City Association of Los Angeles submitted. |
Amicus brief of Brentwood Community Council submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, California Chamber of Commerce, Montana Chamber of Commerce, and Oregon Business and Industry submitted. |
Amicus brief of Goldwater Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of San Bernardino County, California submitted. |
Amicus brief of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of California Governor Gavin Newsom submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer submitted. |
Amicus brief of Thirteen California Cities submitted. |
Amicus brief of City of San Clemente submitted. |
Amicus brief of LA Alliance for Human Rights submitted. |
Amicus brief of League of Oregon Cities et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and Retail Industry Leaders Association submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Council et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of LONANG Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Los Angelesin support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of International Downtown Association, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of League of Oregon Cities et al. (March 11, 2024) filed. |
Brief amici curiae of City of Phoenix, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Local Government Legal Center, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Research Institute filed. |
Amicus brief of Thirteen California Cities not accepted for filing (March 6, 2024--brief to be recovered). |
Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of County of Los Angeles in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of League of Oregon Cities et al. not accepted for filing. (March 06, 2024--Corrected verison to be submitted.) |
Brief amici curiae of Thirteen California Cities filed (March 11, 2024). |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Los Angeles in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Thirteen California Cities (Mar. 11, 2024) filed. |
Brief amici curiae of International Downtown Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Thirteen California Cities (Mar. 11, 2024)filed. |
Brief amici curiae of League of Oregon Cities et al. (Mar. 11 2024) filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Cicero Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor John F. Stinneford filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of California in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Manhattan Institute, Stephen Eide, and Judge Glock filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Chico filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of San Bernardino County, California filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of San Clemente filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Brentwood Community Council filed. |
Amicus brief of Thirteen California Cities not accepted for filing.( brief to be recovered) (March 06, 2024) |
Amicus brief of California State Association of Counties not accepted for filing. (March 04, 2024) (corrected efiling to be submitted) |
Brief amicus curiae of District Attorney of Sacramento County filed. |
Brief amici curiae of State of Idaho, Montana, and 22 Other States filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed submitted. |
Amicus brief of District Attorney of San Diego County submitted. |
Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation and California Business Properties Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Association of Counties, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of City and County of San Francisco, et al. in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of California State Association of Counties submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of Idaho, Montana, and Other States submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of District Attorney of San Diego County filed. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Venice Stakeholders Association (Mar. 8, 2024) filed. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al.(Mar. 7, 2024) filed. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed (March 7, 2024). |
Amicus brief of Venice Stakeholders Association not accepted for filing.(Corrected verison to be submitted (March 05, 2024) |
Amicus brief of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. not accepted for filing. (March 4, 2024) (Corrected efiling to be submitted) |
Amicus brief of Venice Stakeholders Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Venice Stakeholders Association not accepted for filing. (March 05, 2024--Corrected verison to be submitted.) |
Amicus brief of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. not accepted for filing. (March 4, 2024--Corrected efiling to be submitted.) |
Brief amicus curiae of Venice Stakeholders Association filed (March 8, 2024). |
Amicus brief of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter W. Low and Joel S. Johnson supporting neither party filed. |
Brief of petitioner City of Grants Pass filed. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Amicus brief of County of Orange, California submitted. |
Amicus brief of County of Orange, California not accepted for filing.(Corrected verison to be submitted) (March 04, 2024) |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief amicus curiae of County of Orange, California filed (March 8, 2024). |
Brief amicus curiae of County of Orange, California (Mar. 8, 2024) filed. |
Amicus brief of County of Orange, California not accepted for filing. (March 4, 2024--Corrected verison to be submitted.) |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 22, 2024. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024. |
Reply of petitioner City of Grants Pass filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Gloria Johnson, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Chico filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2023. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2023 to December 6, 2023, submitted to The Clerk. |
Response Requested. (Due November 6, 2023) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023. |
Brief amicus curiae of Venice Stakeholders Association filed. |
Brief amici curiae of City of Phoenix, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Idaho, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of LA Alliance for Human Rights, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of City and County of San Francisco, et al. filed |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs filed. |
Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Los Angeles filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ten California Cities and The County of Orange filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Council, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of California Governor Gavin Newsom filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Brentwood Community Council filed. |
Brief amici curiae of League of Oregon Cities, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation and California Business Properties Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Office of San Diego County District Attorney filed. |
Waiver of right of respondent Gloria Johnson, et al. to respond filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of District Attorney of Sacramento County filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of California State Association of Counties filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Freddy Brown, et al. filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 25, 2023) |