红杏视频

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.

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.

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.