In January 2025, Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) filed a lawsuit against the city of Grants Pass, challenging the enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. The organization claims these ordinances discriminate against individuals with disabilities and violate Oregon state laws requiring camping regulations to be “objectively reasonable.” The case, representing five homeless individuals with disabilities, sheds light on the systemic barriers that vulnerable populations face when public policies fail to provide adequate accommodations.

The lawsuit arises in the wake of a controversial Supreme Court decision that allows cities to enforce anti-camping laws, even when shelter options are limited or unavailable. In Grants Pass, only one designated city-owned campsite remains operational, and it enforces restrictive hours that often conflict with the needs of individuals with disabilities. For many homeless individuals, including those with mobility challenges or mental health conditions, accessing shelters with specific requirements, such as curfews or bans on belongings, is nearly impossible. This creates a situation where they are punished for circumstances beyond their control.

In response to the lawsuit, an Oregon judge issued a temporary restraining order in late January, suspending the city’s enforcement of its anti-camping policies for 14 days. During this time, the city is prohibited from citing, arresting, or fining individuals for camping outdoors. This decision marks a small but significant victory for advocates, emphasizing the need for more inclusive solutions to address homelessness. Disability Rights Oregon argues that the city’s failure to accommodate the unique needs of homeless individuals with disabilities violates not only state law but also federal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Critics of the city’s policies highlight that accessible and stable housing is a critical part of ensuring public health and safety. They argue that cities like Grants Pass should prioritize funding for housing-first models and accessible shelters rather than punitive measures. On the other hand, city officials maintain that the ordinances are designed to balance the needs of housed residents, businesses, and public spaces. However, the lack of appropriate shelter and services makes this balance increasingly difficult to achieve.

This case has sparked discussions across Oregon and beyond, raising questions about the broader implications of enforcing anti-camping laws in a way that disproportionately impacts disabled and homeless individuals. The outcome could set an important precedent for similar cases across the United States.

My Thoughts: Having lived in Portland, Oregon, I’ve seen that while the city offers programs to assist individuals experiencing homelessness, many of these services focus more on immediate relief rather than long-term solutions. We need to establish pathways that make it easier for homeless individuals to eventually own a home. To achieve this, we should create reliable, accessible locations offering not just temporary shelter, but also job training, mental health services, financial literacy, and support for navigating long-term housing. It’s even harder for a disabled homeless individual, as accessing these services and transitioning to permanent housing presents additional barriers. By providing stable environments and the resources needed to work toward self-sufficiency, we can help individuals transition from homelessness to homeownership, ensuring long-lasting change and stability.

Do you think we’re moving toward a future where homelessness and housing inequality are no longer widespread? How can communities and governments better collaborate to provide housing for all, including those with disabilities?