Case: Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada
1:90-cv-00013 | District Court of Guam
Filed Date: March 23, 1990
Closed Date: Feb. 3, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This was a case about whether Guam could enforce a near-total abortion ban in 1990 and, decades later, whether that ban could be revived after Dobbs.
On March 23, 1990, a group of plaintiffs led by the Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Territory of Guam challenging Guam Public Law 20-134, which had been enacted four days earlier and criminalized almost all abortions, with only narrow exceptions for ectopic pregnancy and certain grave threats to the pregnant woman’s life or health. The plaintiffs included physician and nurse organizations, individual physicians, a clergy member, and a resident; the original complaint also included a pseudonymous pregnant patient, though the later district-court merits order noted that the original lead plaintiff, Maria Doe, was dismissed on June 26, 1990. They sued then-Governor Joseph F. Ada, public-health and hospital officials, then-Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, and members of the Guam Election Commission. Represented by local private counsel and national reproductive-rights lawyers, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, later plus attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Their pleadings alleged that the law violated the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Guam Organic Act, and Guam’s Equal Rights Statute by blocking abortion access, counseling, referral, and related medical care.
The district court moved quickly because the law had immediate criminal effect. On the same day the case was filed, the court entered a temporary restraining order barring the defendants from enforcing Public Law 20-134 and ordered them to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; the later merits opinion recounted that, after a March 26, 1990 hearing, the TRO was continued until further order. The operative second amended complaint, filed On June 26, 1990, the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint, framing the case as a class action on behalf of Guam abortion providers, counselors, and women patients, and described the plaintiff associations and physicians as people already providing abortions, counseling, referrals, and related care on Guam.
The second amended complaint kept the same basic challenge to Guam’s 1990 abortion law, Public Law 20-134, but it broadened and refined the case. It dropped Maria Doe as a named plaintiff, added the Guam Election Commission board members as defendants because of the law’s referendum provision, clarified that most defendants were sued in their official capacities, expressly added 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Guam Government Code § 1104 as legal bases, and reworked the class allegations so the physician plaintiffs represented not only abortion providers but also their women patients seeking abortion, contraception, and related reproductive-health services.
On August 23, 1990, Chief Judge Alex R. Munson resolved the merits on summary judgment. 776 F. Supp. 1422. In a decision and order filed that day, after an August 7 hearing on plaintiffs’ summary-judgment and permanent-injunction motions and defendants’ dismissal and partial-summary-judgment motions, he treated the central legal question as straightforward: whether Roe v. Wade applied in Guam. He answered yes, relying on the 1968 Mink Amendment to the Guam Organic Act, and permanently enjoined Governor Ada, Attorney General Barrett-Anderson, and Dr. Leticia Espaldon from enforcing Public Law 20-134. The court also concluded that the law’s solicitation provisions—sections 4 and 5—violated the First Amendment because they reached doctor-patient and broader speech about abortion access. The injunction barred enforcement or execution of the law’s provisions, and the hospital administrator and election commission had already stipulated that they would abide by the court’s orders. The court also held that prospective relief was available under § 1983 against Guam officials notwithstanding the unsettled law on territorial liability.
Guam appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 962 F.2d 1366. In an opinion by Judge Canby, the court held that Roe applied to Guam because the Mink Amendment expressly extended the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to the territory. It also held that Governor Ada was a “person” for purposes of § 1983 when sued in his official capacity for prospective relief, and that Public Law 20-134 made “no attempt to comply with Roe” because it criminalized abortion from the outset of pregnancy except in narrow circumstances. The Ninth Circuit also said that because Guam had not appealed the district court’s First Amendment ruling on sections 4 and 5, the plaintiffs argued that nothing was left to decide, but the court rejected that argument and held those unappealed speech provisions were severable from the rest of the statute. The Supreme Court later denied certiorari. 506 U.S. 1011.
After winning on the merits, the plaintiffs pursued attorneys’ fees and costs. In June 1991, the district court awarded substantial fees and costs under § 1988, including a multiplier for some local counsel work; the order listed specific awards to local Guam counsel and to the ACLU reproductive-rights lawyers. That fee award did not end the case. In an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum filed in 1993, the court vacated and remanded the fee award because the district court had not had the benefit of considering later Supreme Court law, particularly Burlington v. Dague, on contingency enhancements, and because standing-related objections could affect some fee components. On a later appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the remand fee award except insofar as the district court had imposed interest from the original judgment date on fees for work performed after the initial judgment; that judgment was entered November 7, 1996, and the district docket copy was filed in 1997.
The case then sat dormant for many years. However, in a 2023 motion, Guam’s Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan stated that the case had been dormant since 1997 and moved under Rule 60(b)(5) to vacate the 1990 permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing that Dobbs had eliminated the constitutional basis for the injunction. He also argued that the old First Amendment reasoning against the solicitation provisions could no longer sustain the injunction. Plaintiffs opposed, as did Guam’s governor and the Guam Memorial Hospital administrator. On March 24, 2023, the District Court of Guam denied the motion. Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood rejected the requested relief and noted that the governor and hospital administrator argued both that sections 4 and 5 still posed First Amendment problems and that Public Law 20-134 had been impliedly repealed by later Guam enactments, making the motion moot.
While Moylan’s federal appeal was pending, the dispute shifted to Guam’s own courts. As the Ninth Circuit later explained, Governor Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero sought a territorial declaratory judgment that Public Law 20-134 had already been impliedly repealed by later Guam abortion-related laws enacted during the decades when the 1990 statute was enjoined. The Supreme Court of Guam agreed in In re Leon Guerrero, 2023 WL 7178992 (Guam Oct. 31, 2023), holding that later laws such as the parental-consent requirement, partial-birth-abortion ban, and informed-consent provisions had displaced the old 1990 ban; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Moylan v. Guerrero, 145 S. Ct. 136 (2024). Once that happened, the Ninth Circuit treated Moylan’s effort to revive the old law as moot because there was no longer any operative Public Law 20-134 left to enforce.
Defendant’s appeal was terminated after a dismissal as moot on April 28, 2025. On February 3, 2026, a panel consisting of Judges A. Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali H. Desai denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. That published order explained that the appeal was moot in light of In re Leon Guerrero, because Public Law 20-134 “no longer possesses any force or effect in Guam.” It also stressed one practical limit of the old injunction: it would not prevent Guam from enforcing some future abortion ban if the Guam Legislature enacted a new one.
As of April 16, 2026, the federal case appeared effectively closed.
Summary Authors
Jacob Chang (4/16/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9255598/parties/guam-society-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-v-ada/
Arriola, Anita (Guam)
Attorney, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, (Guam)
Attorney, Anita Arriola, (Guam)
Burrows, Meagan (Guam)
Camacho, Vincent Cristobal (Guam)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9255598/guam-society-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-v-ada/
Last updated Sept. 3, 2026, 4:51 a.m.
Docket for: Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 23, 1990
Closing Date: Feb. 3, 2026
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A group of Guam abortion provider.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
State
Territory of Guam
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District Court of Guam 1:90-cv-00013
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23-15602
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Reproductive rights:
Case Summary of Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46315/ (last updated 4/16/2026).