Filed Date: Oct. 13, 2017
Closed Date: Sept. 30, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
On October 13, 2017, a 17-year-old pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant in immigration custody filed this suit against the Acting Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for interference with her right to abortion. Filing via a guardian and represented by the National, District of Columbia, and California offices of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing, interfering with, or blocking her or other individuals’ access to abortion. The Court assigned the case to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
The plaintiff, held in a federally funded immigration facility in Texas, sought an abortion while in custody. Prevented from traveling for the abortion by facility staff, she alleged that the March 2017 ORR policy relied on by the staff for the veto was unconstitutional. She asserted that the policy resulted in an “undue burden” to her rights to reproductive healthcare under the protections of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' practices also violated the terms of a previous settlement agreement mandating certain standards for the treatment of unaccompanied immigrants in detention, including reproductive healthcare access Flores v. Reno; and a 2013 ORR regulation requiring reproductive healthcare for victims of sexual assault. She filed a motion for class certification on October 18, 2017 for all similarly situated, pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minors in the legal custody of the federal government denied their right to abortion.
The Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order
Fearing the health implications of delaying the abortion she wanted, the plaintiff sought a TRO that would compel the defendants to promptly allow her the necessary travel to have the abortion. On October 18, 2017, Judge Chutkan granted the TRO, finding that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm otherwise. 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 175415.
The defendants immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit and sought an emergency stay pending the appeal. Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina filed an amicus brief in support. The following day (October 19, 2017) the D.C. Circuit ordered an administrative stay of the TRO awaiting a hearing on the merits on the defendants' emergency motion for a stay. 2017 WL 4707112.
On October 20, 2017 Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Patricia A. Millett heard the appeal. The majority lifted the administrative stay and then vacated and remanded part of the TRO. 2017 WL 9854552. The Court found that the plaintiff had an uncontested constitutional right to an abortion, but pursuant to HHS policy, exercising it required release to a sponsor. Judge Millett dissented.
On October 22, 2017, the plaintiff sought an en banc rehearing in the D.C. Circuit, supported with an amicus brief from the District of Columbia along with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. At the October 24, 2017 hearing en banc, the D.C. Circuit vacated its previous order. 874 F.3d 735.
Following the decision on and on the same day, Judge Chutkan issued an order for defendants to comply with the abortion request within 14 days without the sponsor requirement. Judge Chutkan reasoned that the process of securing an ORR sponsor could take weeks, whereas the plaintiff only had five weeks until Texas law prohibited abortions. According to this ACLU press release, the plaintiff successfully had an abortion.
Plaintiff Additions while Awaiting Class Certification
On November 3, 2017, the defendants filed a motion in the District Court to stay proceedings of the claim for class-wide relief scheduled for November 20, 2017 because of the defendants’ petition to the Supreme Court filed on the same day.
While waiting for certiorari, the plaintiff amended their complaint on December 15, 2017 to include two additional individual plaintiffs, one 10 weeks pregnant and the other 22 weeks pregnant, each seeking a TRO based on the same rationale as the original, single plaintiff. The amendment named one of these new plaintiffs as the proposed class representative. Judge Chutkan granted the TRO on December 18, 2017 (and extended it on December 31, 2017), finding that the policy of ORR that rationally mandated the TRO for the original plaintiff warranted the same risk of irreparable harm to the two additional plaintiffs. 2017 WL 6462270. The defendants appealed the order for the 10-weeks-pregnant plaintiff to the D.C. Circuit the following day (December 19, 2017). However, the defendants voluntarily dismissed the appeal when they discovered that the plaintiff was not a minor, but rather 19 years of age. Under the umbrella of the TRO, the 22-weeks-pregnant plaintiff received her abortion per a December 21 news reports.)
Finding that another minor within immigration custody sought an abortion, the plaintiffs again amended the complaint on January 11, 2018 to include this fourth individual plaintiff. On March 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction, citing that the proposed class likely had more potential plaintiffs than anticipated. Specifically, at least three additional minors, besides the individual plaintiffs, held in the defendants' custody between August 2017 and December 2017 had requested abortions and the government had allegedly obstructed these requests.
The Resolution
On March 30, 2018, Judge Chutkan granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification. Judge Chutkan determined that plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success on the merits because ORR’s policies and practices unduly burdened plaintiffs’ reproductive decisions. Additionally, Judge Chutkan determined that the class certified met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Chutkan issued the final, amended version of the orders on April 16, 2018. In these orders, Judge Chutkan certified the class as all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minor children who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal government. The District Court ordered that the defendants and their respective successors were enjoined from: (1) obstructing any class members access to judicial bypass, medical appointments related to pregnancy dating, non-directive options counseling, abortion counseling, abortions, or other pregnancy related care; (2) forcing any class member to reveal that pregnancy/abortion decision to anyone; (3) retaliation against class members for abortion decisions; and (4) retaliation against those that facilitate class members’ ability to access abortion related medical care.
On April 9, 2018, the defendants appealed the injunction and proposed class certification to the D.C. Circuit Court, which then denied the appeal for class certification on June 4, 2018. In the order, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the motion for stay except for the non-disclosure provision, which it granted review. On that same day, the Supreme Court summarily vacated the D.C. Circuit's October 24, 2017 order on the basis that the original plaintiff's claim was now moot on account of her having had an abortion. Thus, on July 25, 2018, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court to dismiss the individual claim for injunctive relief as moot. In accordance with the vacating of the October 24, 2017 judgment and the July 25, 2018 remand, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the individual plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief as moot on August 1, 2018.
The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 18, 2018. This filing delayed the defendant’s motion to dismiss awaiting an appeal to the Circuit Court. In the interim, the District Court administratively closed the docket on March 15, 2019. The D.C. Circuit then issued the corresponding mandate on August 6, 2019, which allowed the plaintiffs to file a motion to reopen the case on August 8, 2019, which the District Court granted the subsequent day (August 9, 2019). The parties asked for additional time to provide joint status reports on whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary on August 27, 2019. The parties continued to file joint status report updating the court, culminating in a June 11, 2020 joint stipulation in which defendants agreed to abide by the portion of a previous August 12, 2019 joint stipulation stating that defendants will continue to act in accordance with the April 12, 2018 amended class certification and preliminary injunction order.
The plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on September 29, 2020, as the ORR agreed to implement a revised policy––commonly referred to as the Garza rule––prohibiting shelters from interfering with access to reproductive health care, including abortions. The defendants agreed to post Know Your Rights notices on housing bulletin boards, and also agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel $336,710 in attorneys' fees and costs.
The case is now closed; the Garza rule remains in effect, but there is no ongoing lawsuit in which it is enforced.
Summary Authors
Ava Morgenstern (5/5/2018)
Virginia Weeks (9/25/2018)
Andrew Pierce (11/6/2020)
Flores v. Reno, Central District of California (1985)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6170061/parties/garza-v-hargan/
Chutkan, Tanya Sue (District of Columbia)
Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)
Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)
Millett, Patricia Ann (District of Columbia)
Amiri, Brigitte A. (New York)
Burrows, Meagan (New York)
Chou, Jennifer Ling (California)
Dalven, Jennifer (New York)
Gill, Elizabeth O. (California)
Chutkan, Tanya Sue (District of Columbia)
Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)
Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)
Millett, Patricia Ann (District of Columbia)
Amiri, Brigitte A. (New York)
Burrows, Meagan (New York)
Chou, Jennifer Ling (California)
Dalven, Jennifer (New York)
Gill, Elizabeth O. (California)
Goodman, Melissa (California)
Kaley, Lindsey (New York)
Knizhnik, Shana (District of Columbia)
Mach, Daniel (District of Columbia)
Michelman, Scott (District of Columbia)
Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia)
Wroe, Mishan Raini (California)
Cole, David (District of Columbia)
Consovoy, William S. (District of Columbia)
Cook, Caroline Asley (Virginia)
Darrow, Joseph A. (District of Columbia)
Dorsey, Catherine (District of Columbia)
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia)
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
Francisco, Noel (District of Columbia)
Greer, Christina P. (District of Columbia)
Haas, Alexander K (District of Columbia)
Heyse, Michael C. (District of Columbia)
Leo, Sabatino Fioravante (District of Columbia)
Molina, Ernesto H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Mooppan, Hashim M. (District of Columbia)
Park, Michael Hun (New York)
Phillips, Carter G (District of Columbia)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Sandhu, Papu (District of Columbia)
Shieh, Woei-Tyng Daniel (District of Columbia)
Stewart, Scott Grant (District of Columbia)
Strawbridge, Patrick (Massachusetts)
Becerra, Xavier (California)
Chin, Douglas S.G. (Hawaii)
Dasgupta, Anisha (New York)
Davis, James E. (Texas)
Denn, Matthew P. (Delaware)
DeWine, Michael (Ohio)
Donovan, Thomas J. Jr. (Vermont)
Ferguson, Robert W. (Washington)
Hacker, David J. (Texas)
Hawkins, Kyle Douglas (Texas)
Hawley, Joshua D. (District of Columbia)
Healey, Maura T. (Massachusetts)
Hunter, Mike (Oklahoma)
Jepson, George (Connecticut)
Keller, Scott A. (Texas)
Landry, Jeff (Louisiana)
Madigan, Lisa (Illinois)
Mateer, Jeffrey C. (Texas)
Miller, Thomas J. (Iowa)
Mills, Janet T. (Maine)
Morrisey, Patrick (West Virginia)
Murdukhayeva, Ester (New York)
Paxton, Ken (Texas)
Peterson, Doug (Nebraska)
Pitt, Mark Stephen (Kentucky)
Racine, Karl A. (Maryland)
Rosenblum, Ellen F. (Oregon)
Rutledge, Leslie (Arkansas)
Schneiderman, Eric T. (New York)
Schuette, Bill (Michigan)
Shapiro, Joshua D. (Pennsylvania)
Starr, Brantley David (Texas)
Underwood, Barbara D. (District of Columbia)
Wilson, Alan (South Carolina)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6170061/garza-v-hargan/
Last updated May 28, 2023, 3:10 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 13, 2017
Closing Date: Sept. 30, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A pregnant unaccompanied immigrant minor held in federal immigration custody and seeking an abortion, on behalf of a class of all similarly situated minors. Three additional plaintiffs joined over the course of the litigation.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
U.S. Administration for Children and Families, Federal
U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: 336710
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
General:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Type of Facility:
Immigration/Border: