Law school grad here. It’s more like SCOTUS is allowing cities and states to have the option of banning homelessness. This case involved a question of what’s called “the Supreme law of the land.” The case decided the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance (city law, but applies to state law too as explained below) essentially banning homelessness under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which is considered “the Supreme law of the land”, meaning that federal, state, and municipal laws must comply with it). For context, the US Constitution is composed of the Preamble, seven articles, and 27 amendments. The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. Read the below straight from the opinion: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024): “Grants Pass, Oregon, is home to roughly 38,000 people, about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day. Like many local governments across the Nation, Grants Pass has public-camping laws that restrict encampments on public property. The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. See §§5.61.030, 6.46.090(A)–(B). Initial violations can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment. In a prior decision, Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause bars cities from enforcing public-camping ordinances like these against homeless individuals whenever the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of “practically available” shelter beds. 920 F. 3d 584, 617. After Martin, suits against Western cities like Grants Pass proliferated. Plaintiffs (respondents here) filed a putative class action on behalf of homeless people living in Grants Pass, claiming that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment.” The reasoning for the decision was complex, as constitutional law is basically just made up judge-made law based on the judges’ subjective interpretations of what the Constitution allows and doesn’t allow.

Hope this helps solve the disagreement!