Americans United for Life (AUL) is pleased to share our 2025 Second Quarter Life Litigation Report. The report tracks major bioethics cases in federal and state courts across the country. These cases range from early life issues, such as abortion and in vitro fertilization, to end-of-life questions, such as assisted suicide. The goal of the report is to provide an overview of current trends in bioethics litigation and AUL’s legal and policy insights into courtroom battles over the human right to life. Here are some highlights of the report.
Supreme Court About to Decide Planned Parenthood Defunding Case
After hearing oral arguments in April, the Supreme Court is now deciding Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case dealing with Medicaid defunding of Planned Parenthood. The Court is considering whether the abortion providers may bring a lawsuit in federal court to challenge South Carolina’s decision to decertify Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider because it provides abortions. Although the case deals with a nuanced procedural question, the decision will have broader ramifications for abortion funding restrictions and authentic women’s healthcare.
Other Supreme Court Cases of Interest
The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, which concerns a pregnancy center’s challenge to New Jersey’s overly broad investigatory subpoena against the center. The Court granted, vacated, and remanded Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris, for further consideration in light of Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In Roman Catholic Diocese, religious groups conscientiously objected to New York’s abortion insurance mandate.
The Court denied certiorari in two abortion “bubble zone” cases in February, Turco v. City of Englewood, New Jersey and Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois. The cases asked the Supreme Court to overrule Hill v. Colorado, a 2000 decision that upheld a law prohibiting sidewalk counselors from approaching or counseling a woman within an 8-foot floating bubble zone if she is within 100 feet of an abortion facility, even if the woman and sidewalk counselors are on a public sidewalk. However, the issue likely will return to the Supreme Court in the near future. Litigation continues in the lower courts over Hill-copycat ordinances, including in Florida Preborn Rescue v. City of Clearwater and Lopez v. City of San Diego.
There are pending petitions for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court concerning bioethics cases. In Oklahoma v. Health and Human Services, Oklahoma sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the agency’s suspension of Oklahoma’s Title X funding because the state department of health objected to referring patients to an abortion hotline. Montana has raised the issue of whether parents have the fundamental right to know and participate in their minor child’s medical care, including her abortion decision, in Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana, a case concerning a parental consent law.
EMTALA Abortion Mandate Litigation Winds Down
A major legal issue over the past few years has been whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), an anti-patient-dumping statute, requires elective abortions in certain circumstances. Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Moyle v. United States as improvidently granted. That case returned to the Ninth Circuit under the name United States v. Idaho, but in March, the parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration rescinded guidance that had interpreted an abortion mandate within EMTALA. Subsequently, the pro-life plaintiff in Catholic Benefits Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services voluntarily dismissed its case. However, litigation continues in at least one pro-abortion lawsuit, St Luke’s Health System, LTD v. Labrador, which asserts that EMTALA includes an abortion mandate, and, thus, preempts Idaho’s pro-life law.
State Litigation Over Abortion “Rights”
Many state court cases have raised issues over whether the state constitution includes a right to abortion. The Georgia Supreme Court avoided the constitutional question in Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective in February, instead vacating the trial court’s order and remanding the case for the trial court to consider the issue of the plaintiffs’ standing. The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this issue in March in Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley. The parties are briefing the Wyoming Supreme Court about the state constitutional question in Johnson v. State of Wyoming.
South Carolina has defended its heartbeat law three times before the state supreme court in the past few years. In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. South Carolina (Planned Parenthood I), the South Carolina Supreme Court created a state constitutional right to abortion, and determined the state’s compelling interest in maternal health was not narrowly tailored to the heartbeat law. In Planned Parenthood II, the same court upheld the newly passed heartbeat law, determining it survived strict scrutiny because the compelling interest in protecting unborn human life was narrowly tailored to the law. Last month, the South Carolina Supreme Court revisited the heartbeat law in Planned Parenthood III on a question of interpreting the phrase “fetal heartbeat” within the statute. The state supreme court sided with South Carolina in determining that “fetal heartbeat” meant six-weeks gestation, not Planned Parenthood’s proposed nine-week gestational limit.
Assisted Suicide Lobby Challenges Residency Requirements
Since 2022, some states that have legalized assisted suicide have had to defend their residency requirements against lawsuits that sought to expand assisted suicide access. Oregon and Vermont previously settled their cases, agreeing not to enforce the residency requirements in Gideonse v. Brown and Bluestein v. Scott. The legislatures in those states subsequently repealed the residency requirements. Currently, in Govatos v. Murphy, New Jersey is defending its residency requirement against an activist lawsuit. Since the district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss, the case is now before the Third Circuit on appeal where briefing has concluded. An assisted suicide activist group separately filed a lawsuit against Colorado last month, asserting that the residency requirements are unconstitutional in McComas v. Polis. The Colorado case is in early litigation.
Click the PDF below to view the full report.
2025-Q2-Life-Litigation-Report
