ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.

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 ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that 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 Mother’s Day, let’s not forget incarcerated women, and let’s get them home to their families.