Sara Rankin, Seattle University Law professor, on the Gee Scott & Ursula Reutin Show

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to give cities broader latitude to punish people for sleeping in public when they have no other options will likely result in municipalities taking more aggressive action to remove encampments, including throwing away more of homeless people’s property, advocates and legal experts said.

The court ruled that it is not cruel or unusual punishment to fine or jail homeless people for sleeping outside in public places. The ruling, while in theory only applying to cities under the 9th Circuit Court’s purview, sends a message across the country that elected officials have significant leeway in determining how and when to clear people living in public places, regardless of whether there is enough affordable housing or available shelter.

In April, U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments in one of the most widely watched cases out of Oregon in recent memory. The question at the heart of Grants Pass v. Johnson was whether cities can regulate where and when people can sleep outside, especially if there isn’t shelter space available.

“When you fine and ticket people, when you jail them for being homeless, not only do encampments appear again quite quickly, you compound the problems for people experiencing homelessness,” says Shaun Donovan

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Grants Pass, Oregon’s criminalization of sleeping in public, a decision that’s sure to have ripple effects in Washington state.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities and municipalities can punish people for sleeping outside, even when they have nowhere else to go. In the case of The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the conservative majority sided in a 6-3 decision with Grants Pass, a small city in southern Oregon, finding that its broad public camping ban did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

The decision, a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, allows municipalities to enforce anti-camping ordinances, a move hailed by some local leaders but criticized by homelessness advocates.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed lower court rulings, finding that public camping restrictions issued by southern Oregon’s Grants Pass do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”

She shared a seven-bedroom home with her husband's family, but when he died three years ago, she was told to leave, Gutowski told USA TODAY. Gutowski, now 55, was left with only $120. First, she lived in her Chevrolet Cavalier, then briefly at a shelter that shuttered 16 months after launching.

Professor Sara Rankin says the counts miss thousands of people and that point-in-time counts are especially inaccurate.

Ashley Karlstad '21 of the law school's Homeless Rights Advocacy Project discusses why criminalization is a failed approach at dealing with homelessness.

Professor Sara Rankin discusses the current legal framework for cities addressing homelessness.

Large congregate shelters are the least effective way to address homelessness, says Professor Sara Rankin.