THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AT A CROSSROADS:
HOMELESSNESS, PUNISHMENT, AND CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY AFTER CITY OF GRANT PASS V. JOHNSON
Written by Adanma Nwachukwu
Homelessness exposes some of the most vulnerable members of society to daily risks of violence, illness, and stigma. For many, sleeping outside is not a choice but a necessity when shelters are unavailable or unsafe. Recognizing these realities, courts have long turned to the Eighth Amendment to determine whether laws that penalize survival-based conduct cross the line into cruel and unusual punishment. Historically, the Amendment has functioned as a barrier against practices that strip people of basic dignity. Yet in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly diminished that protection. By a 6-3 margin, the Court held that municipalities may criminalize sleeping in public even when individuals have no alternative shelter. In overturning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Martin v. Boise, the Court signaled that punishing conduct inseparable from the status of homelessness does not offend the Eighth Amendment.
This case note argues that the ruling in Grants Pass misapplies the Eighth Amendment by erasing the meaningful distinction between a person’s involuntary status and actions compelled by that status, effectively permitting punishment for the condition of being homeless. To do so, this case note proceeds with Part II outlining the factual and procedural background supporting the legal arguments. Part III explores the legal history of the Eighth Amendment and its application to cases of status-based punishment. Part IV summarizes the majority and dissenting opinions, with Part V critiquing the Court’s reasoning, showing how the decision departs from dignity-based precedent, reframes homelessness as conduct, and opens the door to inconsistent protections across jurisdictions.