Legal Theories after Hadachek v. Oregon
I'm sure by now we all know the Oregon court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment due to a lack of standing. The judge reasoned that the Plaintiffs lack standing because Oregon did not force anyone to cut the Plaintiffs, nor is it possible to make the Plaintiffs whole.
I understand the Plaintiffs are going to appeal this decision and continue the fight. Eric likewise has clients in Colorado who want to argue the same equal protection theory as the Plaintiffs in Oregon.
If other states have similar standing requirements, I am not optimistic that the Equal Protection Theory will prevail. It seems to me that the bar for standing to sue is impossibly high. Who could possibly have standing if circumcised men must show that the state cut them and/or that the state can provide relief?
Let’s assume, then, just for fun, that the equal protection theory fails in all 50 states. What alternative legal theories could we use to have our day in court?
Could we use the laws on criminal battery and child abuse to stop MGM? A tort claim will fail because of parental proxy consent and because children cannot sue their parents. It must be criminal.
So the question becomes: How would we get a DA to assign counsel to prosecute parents or doctors under criminal battery and child abuse laws, as they would for FGM?
Could we get a child circumcised to call the police or CPS to report it as abuse? Or could we find two parents with a circumcised child who are divided on the issue, and have one parent—the non-cutting parent—call the police to report their spouse for abusing their child?
If nothing else, can I at least get a sanity check?