吃瓜大本营

Immigrants鈥� rights advocates sued the Trump administration over the president鈥檚 recent proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border, a move that puts thousands of lives at risk.

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 ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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.

Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from both cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessarily rigorous treatment. This case asks whether death-sentenced plaintiffs seeking to challenge certain execution methods as cruel and unusual or unnecessarily rigorous under this provision must identify, in their pleadings, an alternative method of execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this alternative for Eighth Amendment challenges, but the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Capital Punishment Project and ACLU of Utah, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that federal caselaw does not limit the greater protections provided by section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Forcing prisoners challenging a method of execution to identify an acceptable alternative method is cruel, coercive, and not necessary to the administration of Utah鈥檚 death penalty laws.

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 ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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.