Thus, citing Justice Byron White's concurrence in Powell v. Texas upholding the conviction only because the defendant failed to prove that their alcoholism compelled them to violate the public intoxication statute, the Ninth Circuit held that Robinson v. California remains precedent in prohibiting the criminalization of one's status and associated unavoidable acts.

[6] In July 2020, Clarke ruled that because Grants Pass lacked any homeless shelters that satisfy the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's criteria, its anti-camping, anti-sleeping, and parking exclusion ordinances violated the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Martin v. Boise.

[5] At the time of filing, police officers could immediately issue a written order excluding a person from all parks in Grants Pass based on two or more alleged violations of these ordinances.

Silver, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's motion for class certification on the basis that involuntarily homeless people in Grants Pass satisfied the criteria of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.

Evangelis asserted that homeless people should be forced to make a necessity defense in court rather than challenging the local government's ability to enforce anti-camping ordinances on Eighth Amendment grounds.

[2] Kelsi Brown Corkran, the Supreme Court Director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, argued the case on behalf of Johnson and Logan.

[1] Corkran asserted that the anti-camping ordinance's imposition of a $295 fine, which rises to $537.60 if initially unpaid, lacks any rational basis beyond criminalizing the status of being homeless because the amount exceeds the average cost of rental housing in Grants Pass.

[12] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed the case might also be dismissed for mootness because Section 195.530 of the Oregon Revised Statutes was enacted in 2023, dictating that "any city or county law that regulates the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness", while offering an affirmative defense for violators to challenge the reasonableness of such ordinances.

[13] Third, citing how Powell v. Texas allows acts strongly associated with a status to be criminalized, the anti-camping statutes are upheld, despite the connection between homelessness and placing camping supplies on public land.

[13] Thomas's concurring opinion argues that an originalist interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment would not provide any protections against status-based criminalization, advocating for the overturning of Robinson v. California.

The dissent emphasizes that the lower court decisions already allowed state and local governments to adopt public health measures as long as they did not result in status-based criminalization of homelessness.

[13] The dissent claims that Powell v. Texas was irrelevant in applying Robinson v. California because whereas an alcoholic's decision to drink to the point of public intoxication presents ambiguity in the extent of voluntary wrongdoing, all homeless people must sleep.

Third, homeless people could challenge the ordinance under the Due Process Clause by citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974), which overturned a state law limiting non-emergency medical care based on the length of one's residency for impermissibly denying the basic necessities of life.

[14] UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has noted that the decision does not require courts to accept public nuisance justifications for compelling state and local governments to clear homeless encampments.

[18] In November 2024, Proposition 312, an Arizona ballot measure that allows people to apply for property tax refunds if their local government does not enforce its anti-camping ordinances, passed with 58% of the vote.

[19][20] Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized the ruling as unnecessary based on her prior success in moving homeless individuals into local motels and shelters.