Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
ORCID (Links to author’s additional scholarship at ORCID.org)
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Grants Pass v. Johnson condoned states’ attempts to police homeless encampments. This was a significant blow to unhoused individuals and their allies. But the Court’s opinion also continued its march away from the longstanding evolving-standards-of-decency approach in Eighth Amendment cases. Grants Pass was something of an odd case in which to grant certiorari, but it served as an opportunity for the Court to send a quiet message that it would continue narrowing the Eighth Amendment’s scope. As in other recent cases, the Court applied a more historical approach than the one traditionally used in Eighth Amendment cases, focusing on the original meanings of “cruel and unusual” and “punishments.” Further, the Court surreptitiously narrowed the definition of “cruel” to require governmental intent and raised significant questions about the meaning of “punishments.” This is yet another case in which the Court has shown its intent to continue whittling away at defendants’ Eighth Amendment protections.
Publication Title
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law
Document Type
Article
Keywords
Eighth Amendment, Grants Pass v. Johnson, Homelessness, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Originalism, Constitutional law
Recommended Citation
Meghan J. Ryan, The Miserly Message of Grants Pass, 22 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 173 (2025)
