In The Courts

By JANN CARSON & ANDREA MEYER

Free Speech Case
The Oregon Supreme Court will hear arguments from attorneys in Mike Higginsâs challenge to the state Department of Motor Vehicleâs regulation prohibiting custom license plates that refer to intoxicating liquor. The Oregon ACLUâs cooperating attorney Ed Spinney, who is directly representing Higgins, will argue the regulation violates Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

An important, and potentially far-reaching, element of this case is whether the license plate is defined as state-sponsored speech subject to content regulation or has the state created a limited pubic forum by allowing individuals to customize their license plate. Oral arguments for Higgins v. Oregon DMV will begin at the University of Oregon Law School on Thursday, March 14 at 9:00 a.m

Privacy, Search & Seizure Case
On Monday, March 18, 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Ginelle Weberâs challenge to the Oakridge School Districtâs requirement that she submit to urinalysis drug testing as a condition of playing high school sports. The Oregon ACLU, through cooperating attorney Tom Christ, is directly representing Ginelle and her parents in this legal challenge. Our sole argument is that Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not permit a school to conduct this type of search without an individualized suspicion of wrong-doing. The school has admitted that it does not suspect Ginelle of using drugs but it has refused to allow her to play sports without the drug test. The Court of Appeals argument will begin at 1:30 p.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Salem.

Oral arguments, in both cases, are open to the public. Generally, only one hour is allowed for all parties to argue before the courts on a particular case.

Boy Scouts Case
Powell I, the "original" case brought four years ago, alleges that the Portland School District is violating the Oregon Constitutionâs church and state provisions when it allows the Boy Scouts, a self-described religious organization that bars from membership those who cannot avow a belief in God, to recruit elementary school children as members on school property during the school day. We lost in the trial court and appealed that decision. We had oral argument before a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals in November 2001, and we await a decision. Andrea Meyer and Paul Meyer are providing direct representation in this case.

Powell II continues to slowly make its way through the judicial system. This case, brought two years ago by cooperating attorneys Ken Wittenberg and Jeff Brecht, focuses solely on the state law that prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of religion. After the Portland School Board rejected our claim (with two dissenting votes), we were required to appeal that decision to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Stan Bunn. Superintendent Bunn rejected our claim, without even holding a hearing to receive testimony and evidence. We then filed an appeal to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. After a one day hearing, Judge Ellen Rosenblum held that Stan Bunn abused his discretion because there was sufficient evidence of religious discrimination to warrant an administrative hearing. She remanded the case back to him to hold that hearing. However, both defendants, the Portland School District and the Superintendent have appealed that decision and we are now before the Court of Appeals.

ACLU helps defend Oregon Death with Dignity Act

In November of 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive aimed at nullifying Oregonâs landmark Death with Dignity Act through a radically new interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The State of Oregon, and others, have sued A.G. Ashcroft in federal court to protect the Death with Dignity Act. The ACLU Foundation of Oregon has filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject Ashcroftâs faulty interpretation and application of the CSA.

Ashcroft has determined that the U.S. Attorney General has the authority to decide what a "legitimate medical purpose" is under the CSA and he has decided that providing a controlled substance for physician aid-in-dying is not a "legitimate medical purpose." Under Ashcroftâs directive, an Oregon physician faces losing her ability to prescribe drugs if she chooses to provide aid-in-dying to a patient under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

The ACLUâs brief, written by volunteer attorney Charles Hinkle, argues that Ashcroft misinterprets his authority, the scope of the CSA, and the intent of Congress when it amended the CSA in 1984. Hinkle writes, "the federal government cannot use the Îpretextâ of enforcing laws aimed at preventing the illicit use of controlled substances to intrude into an area that has always been regarded (both as a matter of tradition and as a matter of federalism) as within the exclusive responsibility and prerogative of the states (namely, regulation of the practice of medicine)."

The ACLU has a long history of protecting and advancing the right of individuals to have control of their bodies, from making choices regarding whether or not to have a child to making end-of-life decisions. The ACLU Foundation of Oregon represented a physician and patient in the first legal challenge to the Death with Dignity Act in 1994.