Location: Oregon
I’m wondering if the State v. Eggers (2024) ruling, which adds a firearm ban to harassment (ORS 166.065) convictions under ORS 166.255, breaks the ex post facto rule (Article I, Section 10) since people pleaded guilty before knowing about it and couldn’t anticipate the loss of their rights. Could this retroactive change be challenged under ex post facto?
Comments
>Could this retroactive change be challenged under ex post facto?
No. Not seemingly successfully.
State v. Egger is an Oregon Supreme Court ruling. So your challenge would be to the US Supreme Court. It seems broadly unlikely that your case would heard, or successful if it was heard.
While your argument isn’t absurd, this isn’t a new statute. This is the Oregon Supreme Court deciding how a statute interacts with another. It just doesn’t stand up well to the kind of challenge you’re contemplating.