The U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 voted 6-3 to allow local governments to enforce laws against people sleeping in public places.

The case started in Grants Pass, Ore., where three homeless people sued after receiving citations for sleeping and camping outside. The unsheltered residents said those penalties violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the city did not have any public shelters.

The Supreme Court’s ruling split along ideological lines, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing for the conservative majority. The high court found that the ordinances enacted in Grants Pass, Ore. restricting the right of people experiencing homelessness from sleeping on public property do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” and are therefore not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Local reaction to the watershed decision was mixed. “This ruling brings much-needed clarity to how the City can enforce our laws against unsafe encampments,” said San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria adding, “However, it will not change our strategy on homelessness. It is clear that the 1,000 new shelter opportunities we’ve added in the past three years is working to reduce street homelessness, and we intend to continue to pursue additional beds like those planned for Kettner and Vine to help people off the street and get them connected to care and resources.”

The City Attorney’s office was also pleased by the high court’s decision. “In our amicus brief we asked the Court to return the power to cities to ‘keep the town square open to the public,’ and we are satisfied that this ruling has done so,” said Andrew Sharp, director of communications for City Attorney Mara W. Elliott. “We will continue to work closely with our colleagues in law enforcement and city government to maintain a balanced approach that protects our most vulnerable community members without compromising public safety.”

San Diego City Council President Sean Elo-Rivera of District 9, did not agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. “I stand in dissent with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — the three Supreme Court justices consistently on the right side of justice and history,” said Elo-Rivera. “While I’m disappointed in the Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, I am more committed than ever to addressing our homelessness crisis with compassionate solutions in San Diego. This ruling doesn’t change our ability to focus on building affordable housing, preventing San Diegans from falling into homelessness with rental assistance, and providing human-centered shelter with services.”

Added Elo-Rivera: “I will continue to push for using all the tools available to address the root causes of homelessness and minimize the traumatic experience of being unhoused and associated community-wide impacts without unnecessarily criminalizing the act of being homeless. Reiterating what the justices in dissent stated in their opinion, which those in power must reflect on: ‘Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime…. It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority … leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.’ Our nation and our city should be better than forcing anyone to make such a choice.”

Deacon Jim Vargas, president and CEO at homelessness services provider Father Joe’s Villages, concurred with council member Elo-Rivera’s view. “Thousands of men, women, and children across the country have little option each night other than to find a place to sleep outside,” said Varga. “For our neighbors who have to make this impossible choice, jails are not the answer. The answer is this, as we’ve led in San Diego for decades: investing in increasing available, affordable housing supply and the crucial services that help people rebuild their lives and, ultimately into a home, whether those services be health care, substance use treatment, or childcare. So many of us are simply one crisis away from experiencing homelessness. As cities consider moving forward following today’s Supreme Court decision, I hope they will remember that our neighbors deserve love, compassion, and a second chance. Only with compassion, not bars, will we ensure all of our neighbors can thrive, not languish, on the streets.”

Jennifer Hark Dietz, CEO of People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), also took issue with the high court’s decision characterizing it as “devastating and having disastrous consequences for unhoused individuals across the country, including the 181,000 people experiencing homelessness in California. Throughout our 40 years of service across the state, PATH has seen how costly, ineffective, and inhumane criminalization and enforcement policies can be. The status quo of people living outdoors is unacceptable, but we know what works—connecting people to outreach, supportive services, shelter, and permanent housing. Punishing people for being unsheltered is cruel and will not put an end to our homelessness crisis. As an organization dedicated to ending homelessness, PATH will continue to advocate for housing and services, not handcuffs. ”