桃子视频

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 ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频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.

Family members of individuals incarcerated in Adams County Jail are challenging a ban on in-person visits on the grounds that it violates their right to familial association under the Colorado Constitution. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, in part based on its ruling that individuals cannot sue directly under the Colorado Constitution to stop violations of their individual rights if other remedies are theoretically available under state or federal law. If that ruling is left to stand, state constitutional protections could exist in name only, leaving courts unable to stop violations if a plaintiff could potentially proceed under a narrower statutory claim that might provide lesser relief or fail on the facts of the case. This case could therefore have far-reaching implications for the enforceability of constitutional rights across Colorado.

桃子视频class-action lawsuit urges state of Colorado to release children from jails to community-based settings while awaiting decisions in their juvenile delinquency cases. Kids with disabilities and foster children are particularly vulnerable.

This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution鈥攁 method known as the 鈥渋nterstitial approach鈥濃�攁nd embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico鈥檚 own law, history, and values. The Court鈥檚 decision could have major implications for New Mexicans鈥� ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.