This week, the Legal Clinic joined hundreds of advocates, impacted community members, providers and others at a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the Court heard oral arguments in Johnson v. Grants Pass.

The case involved a city ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, that allows citations and jail time for repeat offenses for sleeping or camping in public, as defined by merely resting with a blanket or pillow. The record indicated that the ordinance was only enforced against people who were homeless and was in fact an intentional strategy to target people who are homeless and get them to move to another town or area. The ordinance allowed enforcement even when the town had no shelter beds available - meaning that people had nowhere to sleep but outside. The lower court found that Grants Pass had violated the Eight Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it criminalized "involuntary homelessness," i.e. sleeping outside when no other shelter is available. As Justice Kagan stated during oral arguments, "for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public."

According to the National Homelessness Law Center, "over 1,000 organizations and public leaders have filed more than 40 amicus briefs (amici) in support of Gloria Johnson and homeless rights…" The briefs focused on many different facets of the case, spanning many different policy and legal arguments for upholding the lower court's decision. The Legal Clinic signed onto an amicus brief authored by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This brief focused on some of the structural causes of homelessness, such as unaffordable housing, federal disinvestment in affordable housing and safety net programs, the impact of criminal and eviction records on obtaining housing, and the far more effective choices that cities and states have if they truly want to reduce or end homelessness.

No one is arguing that cities should turn a blind eye to street homelessness. What we do argue, though, is that people without homes have the same rights under the Constitution as people with homes, including the right to expect police and other government actors to treat them humanely and not discriminatorily. We argue that cities have a choice when their residents have no homes-they can react with punishment and cruelty, or they can provide housing and services (if needed) to permanently end their residents' homelessness. Providing housing instead of handcuffs is not only the moral, effective, and humane choice, but also the Constitutional one.