Thornton et al challenged ordinances regulating resting and use of public property
On Sept. 2, 2026, Umatilla County Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the City of Pendleton’s ordinances regulating camping, resting and exclusions from public property.
Working with the Oregon Law Center, five plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City of Pendleton in October 2025, challenging rules commonly known as the “resting ordinance.” This ordinance governed the use of public property by people experiencing homelessness.
In July 2026, the Pendleton City Council repealed the resting ordinance and replaced it with two distinct ordinances that made significant changes to the regulations regarding the time, place and manner in which public property may be used. The City then asked the court to dismiss the case because the challenged ordinances were no longer in effect. The plaintiffs argued the case should continue.
After hearing arguments on Aug. 28, Circuit Court Judge Daniel J. Hill granted the City's motion to dismiss. In his decision, signed Sept. 2, Judge Hill found that the repeal and replacement of the challenged ordinances created a presumption that the case was moot and that the plaintiffs had not overcome that presumption. The court noted the City has made significant changes since the filing of the lawsuit, including plans to provide new signage identifying locations where people may shelter, paper maps for police to distribute and year-round operation of the Pendleton Warming Center.
The court declined the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint and concluded that the declaratory or injunctive relief sought in the lawsuit would no longer be practical because the challenged ordinances had been repealed and replaced.
City Manager Robb Corbett said the court’s action is welcome.
“This is good news for the City,” Corbett said. “My understanding is this decision can be appealed. It would also say there’s a lot of work that still needs to be done. We still have significant problems in our community that need resolution, and we need to continue to work toward solutions.”
In its decision, the court also recognized that homelessness is a complex societal issue involving factors beyond the authority of the court and that enforcement actions alone do not resolve the underlying causes of homelessness.
###