Case: Zurawski v. Texas

On March 6, 2023, five women who were denied abortions under Texas law while facing medical crises filed this lawsuit in combination with two Texas obstetrician-gynecologists against the state in the District Court of Travis County, Texas (Texas state trial court), asking a judge to clarify exceptions to the state's abortion laws. 

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, Texas's Trigger Ban and Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) resulted in a statewide ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. The Trigger Ban created criminal, civil, and licensing penalties, including first- or second-degree felonies and prison time, a fine of at least $100,000, and license revocation for knowingly performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. S.B. 8 prohibited physicians from providing abortions in Texas if the embryo or fetus has detectible cardiac activity and enacted a bounty-hunting civil enforcement scheme allowing any individual to seek damages of at least $10,000. Both the Trigger Ban and S.B. 8 included an Emergent Medical Condition Exception in the case that a physician believes a medical emergency exists.

Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights and private counsel, Plaintiffs sought (1) declaratory relief to clarify the scope of the medical exceptions to Texas’s abortion bans, (2) a judgment stating that enforcing the bans outside of the Court’s declaration of their scope would be beyond the State’s power, (3) a judgment stating that applying the abortion bans to pregnant people with emergent medical conditions would violate the Texas Constitution, and (4) permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the State from enforcing the abortion bans or instituting disciplinary actions related to alleged violations of the bans in a manner violating the court’s judgment. 

On May 22, 2023, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed an amended complaint, adding as plaintiffs eight additional Texas women who were denied abortions during medical emergencies. That same day, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary injunction to block Texas's abortion bans as they applied to pregnancy complications. A hearing was held on July 19-20, and shortly thereafter, on August 4, Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum granted the temporary injunction. As a preliminary matter, the patient plaintiffs had standing because the claims were capable of repetition but evading review, and the physician plaintiffs had standing because of the imminent risk that they would face liability if they provided abortion care to someone with a risk of death or risk to their health.

Judge Mangrum concluded that the current state of affairs caused uncertainty for providers and that each of the patient plaintiffs were delayed or denied access to abortion care because of that uncertainty. The laws that prompted that uncertainty were therefore inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people under the Texas Constitution. The temporary injunction barred enforcement of any of Texas's abortion bans in connection with any abortion care, where in a physician's good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person, the pregnant person had an emergent medical condition requiring abortion care.

The defendants immediately appealed the ruling, which per Texas's rules of civil procedure, blocked the temporary injunction from taking effect. The Supreme Court of Texas scheduled oral argument for November of that year.

On November 14, 2023, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed an amended complaint, adding seven more Texas women who were denied abortion care as plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument on the matter on November 28, 2023. On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order, vacating the trial court's injunction and holding that the state's laws were not unconstitutional. Justice Bland wrote the majority opinion. In it, the Court held that Texas law allows a physician to perform an abortion when the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition which poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed. However, beyond stating that the person’s death did not need to be “imminent,” it did not clarify when in the course of a pregnant person’s deteriorating health the exception would apply. It also ruled that, unless the pregnant person also has a life-threatening condition, abortions are not permitted where the fetus has a lethal condition.

The majority opinion also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the Texas constitution. It dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that Texas Law violates patients’ constitutional rights to protect their health and lives and plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, rejecting the argument that abortion regulation singles out women, a protected class.

Justices Lehrmann and Busby filed concurring opinions. Justice Lehrmann noted that the Court’s ruling did not preclude a vagueness challenge to the act, and Justice Busby made clear that the Court’s ruling  did not determine whether the act was void for vagueness or whether its application to a particular situation would violate the rule of strict construction of penal statutes.

On June 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice. On July 11, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court, stating that its judgment was final, remanding the case for further proceedings with the Court’s opinion, and ordering that defendants should recover costs. 

The case is presumed closed.