Wilson v. Department of Corrections, 314 P.3d 994

Gregory Wilson, an inmate, and Stormii Wilson challenge a Department rule prohibiting inmates from receiving sexually explicit material that poses security or other harms, under OAR 291-131-0035(l)(a).
Petitioners argue the rule violates Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, asserting facial unconstitutionality and overbreadth.
The State concedes the challenge is facially directed but argues the rule is valid on its face as limited to material that threatens specific harms.
The court analyzes a facial challenge under ORS 183.400(1), examining the rule, governing statutes, and rulemaking procedures for constitutional compliance.
The rule requires case-by-case determinations to identify sexually explicit material and whether it poses specific harms, thus not categorically prohibiting all sexually explicit material.
The court finds the rule not unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and upholds OAR 291-131-0035(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OAR 291-131-0035(1) is facially valid under Article I, §8	Rule exceeds authority and is unconstitutional on its face.	Rule only bans harmful sexually explicit material and is constitutionally permissible.	Rule does not violate Article I, §8 on its face.

State v. Rich, 218 Or App 642 (2008) (discusses categories of laws affecting expression)
State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157 (1992) (three-category framework for expressive laws)
State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402 (1982) (overbreadth and historical exception distinctions)
City of Portland v. Tidyman, 306 Or 174 (1988) (precludes regulating speech by inferred harm)
Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (inmate mail prohibition of sexually explicit material not First Amendment violation)
Estes v. Dept. of Corrections, 210 Or App 399 (2007) (procedural/constitutional considerations in rule challenges)
AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74 (1992) (rulemaking and statutory authority considerations)