On September 14, 2026 a hearing was held in Multnomah County Court (Portland OR) to decide on the State’s motion for Summary Judgment in Hadachek v. Oregon, the historic equal protection challenge to the state’s anti-female genital mutilation law. After two hours of hearing arguments from both sides Judge Melvin Oden-Orr made no immediate decision. He will continue to review whether the current anti-FGM law is unconstitutional for its lack of equal protection for all children. It is a victory in itself that the judge did not automatically grant the State’s motion for Summary Judgment against the Hadachek case.

Hadachek v. Oregon was filed in March 2025, asserting that the current statutes (ORS 163.207 and 431A.600) that protect only female children from medically unnecessary genital cutting violate the equal protection guarantees of the State constitution by failing to protect male and intersex children. On October 23, 2025, the judge denied the State of Oregon’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling that the case had legal merit and the plaintiffs had standing, marking the first time a U.S. state court had allowed a challenge to proceed on these grounds.

Inside the courtroom before the Hadachek v. Oregon hearing.

The case, brought by attorney Eric Clopper with the assistance of Portland gay civil rights attorney Lake Perriguey and Intact Global former law clerk Samer Saffarini, collected numerous amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs to submit to the court for the September 14 hearing.

GALDEF tapped into its “litigation war chest” to help pay an attorney to officially file a brief on our behalf. The brief was joined by the 15 Square organization (U.K.) and the Swiss group Prepuce.ch. The full GALDEF brief can be viewed here.

In GALDEF’s brief, Executive Director Tim Hammond stated that male circumcision causes long-term physical, sexual, and emotional harms to boys and men, citing numerous published studies. He asserted that non-consensual genital cutting violates children’s rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, regardless of sex, and that numerous international medical and human rights standards favor Plaintiffs.

Other briefs were submitted by Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Intact America and Intaction, pediatrician Robert S. Van Howe, researcher Christopher J. Cold, and physician Mathias Mesam, as well as Portland’s Genital Autonomy Collective for intersex, trans and gender diverse people affected by newborn/childhood penile circumcision.

Submitting a single amici brief in support of the State of Oregon were Equality Now, the U.S. End FGM Network and Sahiyo. In their brief, the organizations falsely claimed that “FGM is distinct from male circumcision,” which numerous briefs from GALDEF and others showed clear overlap and common ground. The organizations also argued FGM is a unique form of “gender-based violence” and “discrimination” against a “particularly vulnerable class.” GALDEF countered by quoting U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman – in his 2018 rejection of the “gender-based violence” argument in United States v. Nagarwala – when he concluded, “As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be, it does not logically further the goal of protecting children on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

Hammond, who could not attend the hearing due to temporary travel restrictions after a medical procedure, observed “Since virtually every society where FGM is practiced also practices MGM, the only societies that could be credibly accused of permitting gender-based violence in the context of genital cutting are those that prohibit FGM but permit MGM (e.g., the United States).”