The Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Grants Pass v. Ore­gon con­tin­ues to have rip­pling effects through­out the coun­try, prompt­ing advo­cates for unhoused peo­ple to renew their efforts to alle­vi­ate the home­less­ness cri­sis and pre­vent the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of home­less­ness.

As Roshan Abra­ham explains in an arti­cle for Next City, some state and local gov­ern­ments are tak­ing advan­tage of the rul­ing to cre­ate more puni­tive laws and fur­ther crim­i­nal­ize home­less­ness and encamp­ments. “This alarm­ing accel­er­a­tion of threats to unhoused peo­ple has pushed home­less advo­ca­cy groups to craft a menu of strate­gies to pro­tect unshel­tered res­i­dents. This includes devel­op­ing new mod­el leg­is­la­tion to pre­vent crim­i­nal­iza­tion and call­ing for more fed­er­al fund­ing to pro­vide afford­able hous­ing.”

The rul­ing draws into focus the scale of the home­less­ness cri­sis in the Unit­ed States. The arti­cle out­lines cas­es in sev­er­al cities where advo­cates have been fight­ing for the rights of unhoused res­i­dents. Accord­ing to the arti­cle, “If cities want to reduce encamp­ments with­out dis­plac­ing peo­ple, the best approach is to pro­vide per­ma­nent sup­port­ive hous­ing. But absent that, there’s plen­ty of evi­dence that peo­ple are much more like­ly to accept offers of sin­gle rooms, includ­ing hotel and motel rooms, than con­gre­gate shel­ter.” 

In many cas­es, peo­ple ‘refuse’ shel­ter because it does­n’t accom­mo­date part­ners or pets, or or includes strict reg­u­la­tions such as check-out times and sobri­ety require­ments. For advo­cates, the Grants Pass rul­ing brings the need to make local law­mak­ers under­stand the root caus­es of home­less­ness into sharp focus.