City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a significant case before the United States Supreme Court that addresses the legality of local government ordinances imposing civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land, particularly as it pertains to homeless individuals. The case arose from the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, where local authorities enacted ordinances aimed at managing the presence of homeless people in public spaces. The core issue was whether these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

During oral arguments on April 22, 2024, attorney Theane Evangelis, representing Grants Pass through the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, articulated the city's position. He argued that homeless individuals should be required to mount a necessity defense in court—essentially justifying their need to camp in public spaces—rather than contesting the enforcement of anti-camping laws based on Eighth Amendment claims. This perspective raised significant concerns about the treatment of homeless individuals and the broader implications of criminalizing their circumstances.

Justice Elena Kagan, during the proceedings, challenged Evangelis's argument by highlighting empirical evidence indicating that the enforcement of these ordinances disproportionately affected homeless individuals. Kagan pointed out that the laws appeared to target those without shelter rather than being applied uniformly to all individuals who might use public land for various reasons, such as picnicking or recreation. This observation suggested a troubling potential for the criminalization of homelessness itself, raising ethical questions about the fairness and humanity of such legal measures.

The Court's ruling in this case has implications not only for the rights of homeless individuals but also for how local governments can regulate public land use in a way that respects constitutional protections. By addressing the tension between public order and the rights of vulnerable populations, the case underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of justice and compassion in the enforcement of local laws. As the Court considers these issues, the outcomes could influence future legislation and policies related to homelessness across the country, shaping the national conversation around the rights of the unhoused and the responsibilities of local governments.