Case: Raidoo v. Camacho

This is a case determining whether a Guam statute’s restriction on abortion procedures is unconstitutional. On January 28, 2021, two Guam-licensed OB-GYNs on behalf of themselves and their patients filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The plaintiffs sued the Guamanian government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of law, of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution and expressly extended to Guam under U.S.C. § 1421b(u). Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees. They claimed that the Guam statute, the State-Mandated Information Law, was unconstitutional as applied to prohibit, or otherwise restrict, the use of telemedicine to provide medication abortion to eligible patients in Guam.

Abortion has remained legal in Guam since a 1990 abortion ban was enjoined. The issue at hand was that there were no doctors willing or available in Guam to do abortion procedures for fear of retaliation. Since 2018, the plaintiffs, who were located outside of Guam, received multiple requests for medication abortion through telemedicine without requiring patients to leave the island. However, the State-Mandated Information Law required physicians to “provide the patient with certain information ‘in person,’ ‘individually,’ and ‘in a private room,’” so the plaintiffs were unable to provide their services to patients in Guam.

On February 5, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 23, Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy recommended the motion be denied. Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood disagreed, and on September 3, 2021, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction stating that determining whether there was an undue burden on a person’s right to abortion must include considerations of maternal health and not just the health of the previable fetus. The given rationale for the State-Mandated Information Law was not sufficient to justify this restriction on the right to abortion. The restriction to meet in-person 24 hours prior to an abortion was unduly burdensome because the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts that would support the need for an in-person requirement. 2021 WL 4076772.

On September 22, 2021, the defendant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (21-16559). Nearly two years later, on August 1, 2023, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. In light of Dobbs, the court held that the Guam law did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under rational basis review, the law was rationally related to the legitimate governmental interests of preservation of potential life, protection of material health, and promotion of the integrity of the medical profession. Plus, according to the court, it was rational to treat abortion providers differently from other medical providers because, unlike other medical procedures, abortion implicates fetal life in addition to the patient's health. 75 F.4th 1115. 

Following the Ninth Circuit's opinion, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. As of September 10, 2023, that motion is pending before the court.