Equality Now issues an amicus brief on the distinctive character of FGM/C as a form of gender-based violence, opposing the ruling of Oregon’s statute as unconstitutional for excluding male circumcision

Equality Now, the U.S. End FGM/C Network and Sahiyo submitted this amicus brief to preserve existing protections against female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the state of Oregon. As organisations dedicated to protecting the human rights of girls and women and ending FGM/C, the organisations have a collective mandate to uphold the legal protections that survivors and advocates have secured over decades.

These protections are grounded in international human rights standards recognising FGM/C as a form of gender-based violence and a violation of the rights to equality, dignity, bodily integrity and freedom from violence. The amici’s interest is therefore in ensuring that these protections are not weakened or invalidated. They do not oppose groups looking to secure additional protections in the areas of bodily autonomy, bodily integrity, or human rights, particularly where doing so would not require weakening or invalidating FGM/C laws. Amici support legislative changes only where they strengthen protections against FGM/C in all its forms.

*Update: On 1 October 2026, the Coos County Circuit Court in Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of the State on procedural grounds, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to demonstrate how a ruling would have a practical effect on them. As a result, the judge did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge or rule on the alleged unconstitutionality of the claim. The decision therefore leaves the underlying constitutional question unresolved.

What’s included in the Amicus?

• The present risk of serious physical and psychological harm to girls in Oregon at risk of or who have already undergone FGM/C
• The legislative basis and history of FGM/C prohibitions internationally, nationally, and in Oregon, as well as the compelling governmental interests they serve
• The factual and legal distinctions between FGM/C and male circumcision
• Argument that striking down the statute would inflict harm on girls and undermine equal-protection principles