Oregon
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections鈥� unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them 鈥渢oo attenuated鈥� to qualify as habeas relief. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals鈥� 鈥渃lose connection鈥� test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Featured
Oregon
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The 红杏视频, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
All Cases
9 Oregon Cases
Oregon
Jul 2026
Disability Rights
Simeone v. Multnomah County
Explore case
Oregon
Jul 2026
Disability Rights
Simeone v. Multnomah County
Oregon
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Oregon (Amicus)
Representing the 红杏视频 of Oregon, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of Oregon filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
Oregon
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Oregon (Amicus)
Representing the 红杏视频 of Oregon, the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of Oregon filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government鈥檚 demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters鈥� sensitive personal data such as drivers鈥� license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Privacy & Technology
State v. Kern
This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Privacy & Technology
State v. Kern
This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Oregon
Jan 2025
Smart Justice
State of Oregon v. Adrian Fernandez
This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)鈥攚hich removes an appellate court鈥檚 authority to review a 鈥渟entence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission鈥濃�攑recludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution鈥檚 proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez鈥檚 challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon鈥檚 separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.
Explore case
Oregon
Jan 2025
Smart Justice
State of Oregon v. Adrian Fernandez
This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)鈥攚hich removes an appellate court鈥檚 authority to review a 鈥渟entence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission鈥濃�攑recludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution鈥檚 proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez鈥檚 challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon鈥檚 separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.