Chapter §4.5 ARTICLE I, SECTION 20'S PROHIBITION ON UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§4.5 ARTICLE I, SECTION 20'S PROHIBITION ON UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS

Article I, section 20, also prohibits unequal treatment of individuals. In particular, Article I, section 20 "may be invoked by an individual who demands equality of treatment with other individuals." State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 237, 630 P2d 810 (1981). Thus, for example, Article I, section 20, prohibits the legislature from passing a law that confers a benefit solely on one individual. Altschul v. State, 72 Or 591, 596, 144 P 124 (1914) (striking down statute giving named individual a right to sue because "it grants to the plaintiff here a privilege which is not extended to any other person in this state"). In addition, Oregon courts have explored the guarantee of equal treatment in other, primarily criminal-law scenarios, discussed in §§ 4.5-1 to 4.5-4.

§4.5-1 Prohibition on Vague Laws

One way that Article I, section 20, ensures the equal treatment of individuals is by barring lawmakers from enacting laws that are so vague that the police, prosecutors, the courts, or others charged with enforcing the laws have "unbridled discretion" to determine what the laws prohibit. State v. Speedis, 350 Or 424, 434-35, 256 P3d 1061 (2011); State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228, 239, 142 P3d 62 (2006). Laws that confer unbridled discretion violate Article I, section 20, because such discretion creates the potential for unequal application of the law, and thus unequal treatment of individuals. State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195, 700 P2d 244 (1985). The appellate cases discussing section 20's prohibition on vague laws have, for the most part, involved criminal statutes. In Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122, 146-47, 46 P3d 729 (2002), the court left open the question of the extent to which Article I, section 20, bars the legislature from enacting vague civil laws. However, in...