Medford, OR – The Medford City Council predicted it would have some legal trouble with the city's new anti-panhandling ordinance that went into effect in January, and it was right. On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city for allegedly violating Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, which governs free speech rights. The ACLU contends that laws on the books already cover any problems panhandlers could cause, without restricting their right to ask for money.

Medford is one of several cities defending efforts to reduce panhandling. Its ordinance restricts "immediate donations" and "abusive or aggressive" solicitation. ACLU of Oregon communications director Brian Willoughby says the issue is not panhandling, it's that restricting a person's pitch for spare change is also limiting that person's freedom of speech.

"It's a fundamental right for us in the State of Oregon. The constitution doesn't allow laws to be crafted that are based on the content of speech. So if, on a sidewalk, you're allowed to say, 'How's the weather?', you're also allowed to say, 'I'm really hungry today. Could I have a dollar?'"

Medford's police chief has said the city researched similar ordinances in other areas before drafting this one. Portland and Roseburg also have been working to curtail panhandling. And a recent survey in Coos Bay found panhandlers can make several hundred dollars in a day. Police there say the easiest way to cut down on the practice is to not give money to panhandlers.

Willoughby says the new ordinance is not needed because plenty of public conduct laws are on the books now.

"Laws already exist to take care of abusive behavior – disorderly conduct, interfering with traffic – that kind of thing is already covered by existing ordinances that are constitutional. Targeting this as a speech issue makes it unconstitutional."

The lawsuit, Volkart v. City of Medford, was filed in Jackson County Circuit Court. Volkart is not a panhandler, but an ACLU member.




get more stories like this via email

A year-old U.S. Supreme Court case means relief for two Nebraskans who faced losing their homes and all the equity they had built, when investment firms bought their property for unpaid property taxes.

Legal Aid of Nebraska, with Pacific Legal Foundation as lead counsel, appealed a Nebraska State Supreme Court ruling saying the homeowners were not entitled to the equity in their homes.

In Pacific Legal's landmark 2023 case, Tyler v. Hennepin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled homeowners in such a situation must be paid for any surplus equity, after taxes and fees. It vacated the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court, which, upon revisiting the case, concluded the Nebraska homeowners must receive "just compensation" for their equity.

Christina Martin, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the Tyler decision could open doors for others similarly affected.

"The bottom line is, people who think they have a claim should reach out to Legal Aid of Nebraska," Martin urged. "They could also reach out to property rights attorneys, eminent domain attorneys. And ultimately, this decision is going to protect Nebraska's weakest population the most."

Martin explained, subject to states' statutes of limitations, the Tyler decision is fully retroactive. She added tax foreclosures disproportionately affect older or low-income homeowners, or those with medical conditions.

Caitlin Cedfeldt, staff attorney of the Housing Justice Project for Legal Aid of Nebraska, said it's a victory for the two homeowners and all Nebraskans.

"It is still possible for someone to lose their home, but if they are going to lose the home, they are going to at least get the equity out of it," Cedfeldt explained. "It's kind of incredible that both of these elderly clients will have a chance maybe at keeping their homes."

Cedfeldt pointed out it was the first case Legal Aid of Nebraska filed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2023, several years after these homeowners' cases were initiated, Nebraska law was changed to require that homeowners receive any surplus equity in property tax foreclosures.


get more stories like this via email

A U.S. Senate subcommittee has uncovered widespread abuse of pregnant and postpartum women incarcerated nationwide, including in Georgia.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, said its research has found more than 200 reported cases of human rights violations against women in state prisons and jails. He said the abuses range from neglect during labor to newborns being taken away immediately after birth.

"We've heard from mothers forced to give birth in prison showers, hallways or on dirty cell floors," he said. "Mothers who gave birth into toilets, after being told they were 'not in labor.'"

Despite laws in 41 states including Georgia that prohibit or restrict shackling pregnant and postpartum people in prison, the subcommittee said violations were found in at least 16 states.

During last week's hearing, Jessica Umberger, who gave birth in a Georgia state prison, testified about the abuse she endured. She recounted being forced to have a Cesarean section, and said she was denied proper hygiene and placed in solitary confinement shortly after the birth.

"I was put in solitary when my baby was only five days old," she said. "In solitary confinement, I had no medical support. The staples in my stomach from my C-section had not dissolved, and there was no air conditioner."

The senators also heard from Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She suggested changes to address mistreatment and improve conditions for those who are pregnant behind bars.

"There are many opportunities for policy and practice change that could improve conditions and the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women in prisons and jails, as well as for their newborns," she said. "One is to find a pathway to require medical standards of care."

She said expanding Medicaid to cover people in prison could help enforce these standards.

Ossoff stressed the need for bipartisanship, and said further investigation is needed.

Civil rights groups are sounding the alarm about potential threats to American democracy posed by Project 2025, a roadmap created by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president.

The 900 page document calls for dismantling key protections against discrimination, access to reproductive health care, and more.

Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, said Project 2025 aims to undo gains made 60 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But she said this agenda isn't new.

"And either we're going to stand on the victory of ending slavery, and of understanding the role of a federal government in ensuring that we all have civil rights, or we will not have a democracy," said Wiley. "And this is a blueprint for ending it."

Donald Trump has recently distanced himself from Project 2025, after praising the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022.

Heritage says the roadmap - which was co-authored by top Trump advisors - does not speak for any single candidate, it just provides recommendations.

Many of those track closely with Trump's priorities, including removing regulations and checks on presidential power.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said Project 2025 also calls for expanding child labor and rolling back workplace protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or "OSHA" - designed to prevent accidents, injury and death.

"Tell that to a woman who lost her son in a grain silo, that could have been prevented, because he was cleaning it without the proper equipment," said Shuler. "That is OSHA. These fines and these laws are there for a reason."

Project 2025 would ban both abortion and in vitro fertilization nationally, and restrict access to contraception.

Patrick Gaspard, CEO of the Center for American Progress, said he believes the roadmap's creators want to take the nation back not to 1964 but to 1864.

"When men made decisions for women," said Gaspard, "when people who looked like me did not have the full agency and franchise of this great American republic, when huge corporations worked folks like farm animals."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email