The lawsuit, filed in January by Disability Rights Oregon and five homeless plaintiffs, alleges Grants Pass鈥檚 treatment of homeless people violates state law, including disability protections.
On Friday afternoon, Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued an injunction preventing the city from enforcing its public camping laws until it has fulfilled two conditions.
First, Grants Pass has to increase its designated camping sites to the same capacity it previously offered before the city closed an approximately 1.2-acre site in January.
Second, the city must ensure all resting sites 鈥減rovide accessible routes and surfaces鈥� for people with disabilities.
These restrictions don鈥檛 apply to either Riverside Park or Reinhardt Volunteer Park.
鈥淭he court finds the Plaintiff鈥檚 proposed preliminary injunction order is too broad,鈥� Judge McGlaughlin wrote in her Friday order. 鈥淎 blanket ban on enforcement of the GPMC [Grants Pass Municipal Code] Camping Regulations causes unnecessary harm to the City and the public鈥檚 interest in regulating camping on public property.鈥�
The city currently has two sites for homeless people to rest near the police station and City Hall.
Grants Pass only recently got out from under another court injunction, which lasted for four years. It was part of a different lawsuit over Grants Pass鈥檚 treatment of homeless people, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the city鈥檚 favor.
But in January, this new lawsuit was filed, and with it, now another injunction.
A big question in the current lawsuit is whether the city鈥檚 public camping ordinances are 鈥渙bjectively reasonable,鈥� as required by Oregon鈥檚 . But that term isn鈥檛 clearly defined.
鈥淲hat is objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner is not easily discernible,鈥� McGlaughlin wrote in her order. 鈥淩ather it is a continuum of possibilities that balance the various interests of the community (including members who are homeless), and its resources. This court will not insert itself into the middle of that continuum.鈥�
Attorneys for both sides made their cases on Tuesday afternoon during two hours of testimony.
鈥淭he spacing that鈥檚 required between tents means that it is literally impossible for all of those people to fit into two quarter-acre sites,鈥� Tom Stenson, deputy legal director at Disability Rights Oregon, said. 鈥淚t is a violation not only of Oregon state law but of the law of physics and the laws of geometry.鈥�
Aaron Hisel, the attorney representing Grants Pass in this case, argued the case should head to a trial.
鈥淲e should just proceed with litigation, both sides get their evidence, and come have a trial, and see what a jury says about whether or not it鈥檚 objectively reasonable or not. Imperfection does not make it objectively unreasonable,鈥� he said.
On Friday, Stenson said the judge鈥檚 decision was a victory for the plaintiffs.
鈥淚 believed in our claims all along, but this is a new area of the law, so I was excited,鈥� he said. 鈥淓ven though I thought our arguments were sound, I thought the law was on our side, but when something is a new area of law, there鈥檚 always a little anxiety about it.鈥�
Hisel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday afternoon.
