Hadachek v. Oregon

Constitutional Opportunity for Intersex Rights Protection

InterConnect Summer Conference Presentation

July 25, 2025

Special Acknowledgment: This presentation is made possible through the generous support of the Genital Autonomy Collective (GAC), Portland's regional support group for people affected by genital cutting. GAC's funding enabled this critical outreach effort, while their organizational excellence and compassionate research communication have been instrumental in advancing this constitutional opportunity. We extend profound gratitude to GAC for their strategic vision in supporting intersex community education about this unprecedented legal framework.

Presentation Overview

I. Executive Summary & Critical Constitutional Challenge

What This Case Is

Hadachek et al. v. Oregon (Case No. 25CV18224) is a state constitutional lawsuit challenging Oregon's Female Genital Mutilation statutes as discriminatory. Filed March 27, 2025, in Multnomah County Circuit Court, this case argues that Oregon Revised Statutes 163.207 and 431A.600 violate the Oregon Constitution by protecting girls from genital cutting while providing no equivalent protection for boys or intersex children.

What We're Challenging

Oregon's legal framework creates an unconstitutional three-tier protection system:

  • Full Criminal Protection: Female children receive Class B felony protection from genital cutting

  • Zero Protection: Male children have no statutory protection from analogous procedures

  • Legal Void: Intersex children exist in an enforcement gap with no clear legal guidance

Why This Matters for Intersex Rights

This case presents the first constitutional opportunity to establish explicit legal protection for intersex children. Oregon's binary sex classification system in its anti-cutting statutes fails to address intersex anatomy, creating arbitrary enforcement where procedures affecting intersex children receive no protection regardless of invasiveness or medical necessity.

Legal Emergency Alert

  • Motion to Dismiss Filed: Oregon Attorney General challenges case survival (July 23, 2025)

  • 30-Day Response Deadline: Without an intersex plaintiff case may lose its power to set precedent for intersex rights

  • Constitutional Precedent at Stake: Only current opportunity for state-level intersex protection

II. Meet the Legal Team & Strategic Framework

Lead Attorneys

Lake James H. Perriguey, Esq.

  • Oregon Bar #983213 | Law Works LLC, Portland

  • Civil Rights Champion: Filed Geiger v. Kitzhaber (Oregon marriage equality)

  • Intersex Advocacy: Represented Jamie Shupe (first legal non-binary recognition)

  • Contact: (503) 227-1928 | lake@law-works.com

Eric Clopper, Esq.

  • Lead Counsel | The Clopper Law Firm PC, Los Angeles

  • Background: Georgetown Law graduate, Intact Global founder

  • Strategic Vision: Constitutional protection for all children regardless of sex characteristics

  • Contact: eric@intactglobal.org

Supporting Organizations

Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund (GALDEF)

  • Mission: Support impact litigation expanding children's bodily integrity rights

  • 501(c)(3) Status: Tax-deductible litigation funding

  • Focus: Strategic cases establishing legal precedents protecting vulnerable children

Genital Autonomy Collective (GAC)

  • Portland Regional Support: Community network for individuals affected by genital cutting

  • Mission: Intersectional advocacy emphasizing inclusive spaces for marginalized communities

  • Approach: Explicitly anti-fascist, anti-racist framework supporting comprehensive bodily autonomy

  • Strategic Role: Funding and organizational support for critical intersex rights education efforts

Constitutional Advantages

Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 20

"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Strategic Benefits:

  • Strict Scrutiny Standard: Sex-based classifications receive highest constitutional review under Oregon law

  • Stronger Than Federal Law: Oregon courts apply more rigorous protection than federal equal protection analysis (Oregon Bar Bulletin legal analysis)

  • Favorable Precedent: Successful constitutional challenges in marriage equality and gender recognition cases

Current Legal Challenge

Case: Hadachek et al. v. Oregon Court: Multnomah County Circuit Court Case Number: 25CV18224 Filed: March 27, 2025 Claims: Oregon's Female Genital Mutilation statutes violate equal protection by protecting only girls

IV. Current Plaintiffs & Critical Vulnerabilities

Existing Plaintiffs (All Male Circumcision Claims)

  1. Cecil Mininger (39) - Circumcised Portland, 1985

  2. Carter Moody (27) - Circumcised Portland, 1998

  3. Landon Moody (25) - Circumcised Portland, 2000

  4. Dane Hadachek (17) - Circumcised Bend, 2007

  5. Sierra Hadachek - Mother claiming emotional trauma

  6. John Doe 1 & 2 - Intact minors added July 17, 2025

Fatal Legal Weaknesses Identified by Oregon's Motion

Standing Deficiencies:

  • Plaintiffs demonstrate only "abstract policy interests"

  • No concrete harm from Oregon's female genital cutting laws

  • Past circumcisions create speculative rather than present injuries

Justiciability Problems:

  • Challenged statutes cannot apply to male plaintiffs

  • Constitutional relief provides no "meaningful relief" for circumcision

  • ORCP 27 violations: Minor plaintiffs lack guardian ad litem representation

V. How Intersex Plaintiffs Transform Constitutional Theory

Strategic Advantages for Intersex Participation

1. Concrete Constitutional Violations

  • Oregon's binary classification system provides no guidance for intersex anatomy

  • Ongoing medical surveillance creates present, continuing harm

  • Governmental discrimination in professional/educational settings establishes state action

2. Enhanced Legal Standing

  • Present Facts: Active medical relationships and intervention discussions

  • Meaningful Relief: Constitutional ruling would require inclusive protection framework

  • Concrete Injury: Real people currently unprotected by arbitrary legal classifications

3. Stronger Evidence Base

  • Intersex procedures typically more invasive than circumcision

  • Medical necessity challenges supported by Oregon medical ethics organizations

  • Growing Oregon healthcare provider consensus opposing unnecessary interventions

Ideal Plaintiff Profiles

Category 1: Adult Intersex Oregonians with Medical History

  • Ages 18-39 with documented Oregon procedures

  • Medical records establishing cosmetic rather than necessary interventions

  • Within Oregon's child abuse statute (claims until age 40)

Category 2: Minor Intersex Oregonians with Current Risk

  • Under medical surveillance with intervention recommendations

  • Supportive guardians willing to pursue proper guardian ad litem representation

  • Active Oregon medical relationships creating ongoing constitutional violations

Category 3: Adults Experiencing Oregon Governmental Discrimination

  • Professional licensing barriers or educational discrimination

  • Healthcare access issues with state-funded providers

  • Continuing constitutional harm requiring immediate redress

VI. Immediate Action Steps & Contact Information

Urgent Timeline (Next 30 Days)

Legal Consultation Priority: Contact attorneys immediately for case evaluation Documentation Preservation: Secure medical records, governmental correspondence, impact evidence Guardian Coordination: Minor participants require proper legal representation before joining

Primary Contacts

Legal Team:

Community Support:

  • InterConnect: Follow-up through established conference networks

  • Genital Autonomy Collective (GAC): Portland regional support and strategic coordination

  • Strategic Coordination: Carrie Cantrell presentation follow-up

Screening Questions for Potential Plaintiffs

  1. Oregon Connection: Procedures in Oregon or by Oregon providers?

  2. Timeline Compliance: Within statute of limitations frameworks?

  3. Documented Impact: Physical, psychological, professional, or personal harm evidence?

  4. Medical Necessity Challenge: Expert testimony availability for cosmetic procedure claims?

  5. Ongoing Harm: Current surveillance, discrimination, or intervention risks?

Essential Resources

Legal Information

Case-Specific Resources

  • Intact Global: Primary litigation funding organization

  • GALDEF: Legal defense fund supporting constitutional litigation

  • Law Works LLC: Local counsel firm with civil rights expertise

Medical and Advocacy Support

  • InterConnect: 29-year intersex support organization providing community foundation

  • Genital Autonomy Collective (GAC): Portland regional support group with intersectional advocacy approach

  • Oregon Medical Ethics Organizations: Healthcare providers supporting informed consent standards

  • Medical Records Assistance: Guidance for securing childhood procedure documentation through Oregon healthcare systems

International Context

Removed per presenter request to maintain local Oregon focus

Legal Glossary

Constitutional Justiciability

Legal doctrine requiring courts to decide only concrete controversies where judicial resolution provides practical effect. Oregon requires "present facts" (current disputes) and "meaningful relief" (decisions actually helping plaintiffs).

Application: Oregon argues current plaintiffs fail justiciability; intersex plaintiffs cure this defect through ongoing governmental harm and immediate redressability.

Equal Protection

Constitutional principle requiring government to treat similarly situated individuals equally, with heightened scrutiny for protected characteristics like sex.

Application: Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 20 applies strict scrutiny to sex-based classifications, providing stronger protection than federal equal protection analysis.

Guardian Ad Litem

Court-appointed adult representing minor's interests in legal proceedings, separate from parents or regular attorneys.

Application: ORCP 27 requires guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs; current case violates this requirement, creating dismissal vulnerability.

ORS 12.117 - Oregon's Child Abuse Statute

Limitation period allowing claims until age 40 OR five years from discovering causal connection between childhood abuse and adult injuries, whichever is longer.

Application: Most favorable timeline for intersex plaintiffs, recognizing discovery rule for connecting childhood procedures to adult complications.

ORCP 27 - Minor or Incapacitated Parties

Oregon rule requiring guardian ad litem representation for minor plaintiffs in legal proceedings.

Application: Current minor plaintiffs lack required representation, creating procedural vulnerability Oregon exploits in motion to dismiss.

Intersex vs. Non-Binary: Legal Distinctions

Intersex: Medical/biological term referring to individuals born with variations in sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, internal or external anatomy) that don't fit typical male or female patterns. Intersex is a biological reality present at birth, distinct from gender identity.

Legal Application: Oregon's binary sex classification system in FGM statutes fails to address intersex anatomy, creating enforcement gaps where procedures affecting intersex children receive no statutory protection regardless of invasiveness or medical necessity.

Non-Binary: Gender identity term for individuals whose gender identity doesn't align exclusively with male or female categories. Non-binary identity is about internal sense of gender, not biological sex characteristics.

Legal Application: Jamie Shupe's case (represented by Lake Perriguey) established first legal non-binary gender recognition, addressing identity documentation rather than medical protection issues. This demonstrates Perriguey's broader LGBTQ+ civil rights expertise but differs from intersex medical protection needs.

Critical Distinction for This Case: Intersex individuals may have any gender identity (including non-binary), but this case addresses medical protection based on biological sex characteristics at birth, not gender identity recognition. Oregon's statute protects specific female anatomy but provides no guidance for intersex variations, creating the constitutional violation regardless of gender identity.

Pro Hac Vice

Latin for "for this occasion only" - allows out-of-state attorneys to represent clients in specific cases with court approval.

Application: Eric Clopper received Oregon admission June 25, 2025, demonstrating case's interstate significance and specialized expertise.

Complete Bibliography

Primary Legal Sources

Oregon Judicial Department. (2025). Case Information: 25CV18224 Hadachek et al. v. State of Oregon. Multnomah County Circuit Court.

Forzley, S., Morgan, S., & Morrow, K. E. (2025, July 23). Defendant's motion to dismiss [Legal brief]. Case No. 25CV18224, Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah County.

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2025). Oregon Constitution Article I. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/orcons.html

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2025). Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 12 - Limitations of Actions and Suits. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors012.html

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2025). Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 163 - Offenses Against Persons. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors163.html

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2025). Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/SiteAssets/ORCP.html

Legal Organizations and Professional Resources

Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund. (2025). Mission and impact litigation support. https://www.galdef.org/

Intact Global. (2025). Protecting children through strategic constitutional litigation. https://www.intactglobal.org/

Law Works LLC. (2025). Civil rights and constitutional law practice. https://www.law-works.com/

Oregon State Bar. (2025). Attorney information and legal resources. https://www.osbar.org/

The Clopper Law Firm PC. (2025). Constitutional and civil rights litigation. https://www.clopper.law/

Medical and Ethical Sources

The Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity. (2024). Genital modifications in prepubescent minors: When may clinicians ethically proceed? The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(2), 1-18.

Government and International Sources

Oregon Attorney General's Office. (2025). Department of Justice official information. https://www.doj.state.or.us/

Oregon Judicial Department. (2025). Official court system information and case access. https://www.oregonjudicial.gov/

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025). International human rights standards and intersex issues. https://www.ohchr.org/

Statutory and Regulatory Sources

Oregon Public Law. (2025). ORS 12.117 -- Actions based on child abuse. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_12.117

Oregon Public Law. (2025). Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure - ORCP 27. https://oregon.public.law/rules-of-civil-procedure/orcp-27-minor-or-incapacitated-parties/

This presentation represents a critical moment in intersex rights advancement. The constitutional framework exists, experienced legal counsel is engaged, and Oregon's strong equal protection provisions create optimal conditions for transformative precedent. Success requires immediate community mobilization to seize this opportunity before the window closes permanently.

Contact the legal team immediately if you meet potential plaintiff criteria. The next 30 days will determine whether this becomes the landmark case protecting all children regardless of sex characteristics.