Last year, in Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of laws punishing sleeping in public. Ignoring arguments that these laws serve no penological purpose and are enacted to target people experiencing homelessness, the Supreme Court ruled that these laws address conduct, not status, and that federal judges may not impose upon localities’ efforts to ‘handle’ homelessness. Moreover, the majority reasoned that 8th Amendment protection was unnecessary given that unhoused people could raise the affirmative defense of necessity. Putting aside the high burden of proving necessity, the Court ignored that the vast majority of laws criminalizing homelessness are infractions which do not include a right to counsel. Further, the Court failed to consider that unsheltered people who must focus on their survival will likely struggle to engage with a criminal legal system that offers nothing by ways of resources or supports. Now, the need to work on behalf of people experiencing homelessness is as great as ever. In the legal universe Grants Pass has established, clinicians have the opportunity to engage in defensive and offensive strategies to combat the policies that perpetuate homelessness. They may provide a criminal legal defense but also affirmative representation to remove barriers to housing, for example through expungement. They may also pursue impact work through policy and human rights channels to lift up evidence-based solutions to homelessness and advance a right to adequate housing. Some clinicians and law schools have pivoted to incorporate a focus on homelessness. However, these clinics remain rare. Yet, in the wake of Grants Pass, legal education must not look away. Clinical legal educators have the opportunity to resist criminal persecution that explicitly targets the unhoused community and advocate for real solutions that address the root causes of homelessness.