Rights & public space

The Grants Pass ruling and Hawaiʻi: what the Supreme Court changed about camping laws

Rights & public space · Published 2026-10-27

The white marble U.S. Supreme Court building seen through a tall window with a stone balustrade, with the Washington Monument in the distance
The U.S. Supreme Court seen from the Library of Congress. Photo: Packer1028, CC0.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the most important court ruling on homelessness in a generation. It ended a rule that had limited how cities in nine western states, Hawaiʻi among them, could enforce laws against sleeping and camping in public. Here is what the Court decided, what it did not decide, and what still governs enforcement on Oʻahu.

The background: Martin v. Boise

Hawaiʻi's federal courts sit in the Ninth Circuit. In 2018, in Martin v. City of Boise, that court held that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from criminally punishing people for sleeping outside on public property when they have no access to shelter. In practice, the rule tied enforcement of camping bans to the number of available shelter beds. The Ninth Circuit later applied similar reasoning to civil fines and exclusion orders in a case brought against Grants Pass, a small city in southern Oregon.

Cities across the West argued the rule was unworkable: how many beds count, what if a person refuses a bed, and who decides whether someone is "involuntarily" homeless? Advocates argued it was a minimal protection against punishing people for having nowhere to go.

What the Supreme Court decided

By a 6 to 3 vote, in an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Its main conclusions:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that punishing people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go punishes them for being homeless.

The case in brief

What the decision did not decide

The ruling is narrower than some headlines suggested. It addressed the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. It did not address other constitutional protections that may apply to enforcement, as law firm and academic summaries such as the University of North Carolina School of Government's analysis have noted. Among the rules that remain:

What changed on Oʻahu

For Honolulu, the practical effect is that the City and State no longer need to show available shelter before citing or arresting someone for violating a law against camping or sleeping in a public place. Laws already on the books, such as the sit-lie bans in Waikīkī and other business districts (see sidewalks, parks and sit-lie rules), are less exposed to Eighth Amendment challenges than before.

That legal room does not dictate a policy. Elected officials still choose how much to rely on enforcement and how much on outreach, shelter and housing. The City's public messaging around its May 2026 Point-in-Time count emphasized outreach teams and shelter capacity, and the State has built kauhale villages as a low-barrier alternative to the street. Critics of enforcement-heavy approaches point out that citations and arrests can make it harder for people to keep IDs, belongings and appointments, and that fines people cannot pay can lead to warrants.

What this means for people living outside

For neighbors and voters

Grants Pass moved the debate from the courts to councils and legislatures. That makes public participation more important: testimony on bills, comments at neighborhood boards and questions to candidates about what they would do for people with nowhere to sleep. Our guide to helping well includes civic routes alongside volunteering.

Sources