Case: Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. v. Nevada

This case is a challenge to a Nevada state law requiring parental notification or a judicial bypass for minors seeking abortion care.

Background

In 1985, the Nevada legislature passed Senate Bill 510, which prohibited an unmarried or unemancipated minor from receiving abortion care until they either (1) notified a parent or guardian or (2)  obtained a judicial bypass (the “Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass provisions”). Planned Parenthood of Washoe County and an abortion provider sued in federal court that same year and, in 1991, Judge Edward C. Reed permanently enjoined the law, holding that the Parental Notification Law violated the right to abortion under the federal constitution. 2023 WL 12064153. 

Thirty-one years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held there is no constitutional protection for abortion rights, thereby overruling Roe. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On December 1, 2023, two county district attorneys moved for relief from judgment in the federal court action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). Planned Parenthood Monte Mar v. Aaron Ford. Judge Anne Traum granted the motion on March 31, 2025, causing the plaintiff, Planned Parenthood Monte Mar (PPMM), to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Ninth Circuit denied PPMM’s motion for a stay pending appeal on July 18, 2025, thereby allowing the Parental Notification Law  to go into effect. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte filed the present lawsuit in state court on July 21 and dismissed the federal case on July 23. See Planned Parenthood Monte Mar v. Aaron Ford for a complete summary of the federal case. 

The Present Case

On July 21, 2025, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. and an anonymous abortion provider (collectively, “PPMM” or “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit challenging the Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass provisions in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The defendant was Nevada ex rel. the Office of the Nevada Attorney General and the Nevada Attorney General. PPMM argued that the Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass provisions – codified at NRS 442.255 and 442.2555 – violated the Nevada Constitution or were otherwise unlawful.

Specifically, PPMM argued that the Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass provisions were unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the state’s Due Process Clause; violated Plaintiffs’ patients procedural due process rights under the same clause; and violated the state constitution’s Equality of Rights Amendment by singling out and discriminating on the basis of enumerated governmental classifications. Additionally, PPMM argued that, because the Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass were unconstitutional at the time of their enactment, they were ultra vires and void ab initio and could not be revived as enforceable law. Finally, PPMM argued that the statutes had been impliedly repealed by the Trust Nevada Women Act and the Equality of Rights Amendment.

Represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and private counsel, PPMM sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to District Court Judge Erika Mendoza. 

On September 26, 2025, Judge Mendoza denied PPMM’s application for a preliminary injunction. 349 F.R.D. 213. Plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Parental Notice provision and the “Pocket Approval” provision–NRS 442.225(3), which allowed for a default order permitting abortion where a court did not issue a timely decision–based on a credible threat of prosecution supported by mandatory record-keeping requirements and affirmative steps taken by two district attorneys to lift the prior injunction. However, Judge Mendoza held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Judicial Bypass provision on their own behalf or to assert claims on behalf of their patients. The court rejected all three substantive claims, finding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, failed to show irreparable harm, and did not prevail on the balance of hardships. 

PPMM appealed the order to the Supreme Court of Nevada on September 30. On October 14, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings, which the trial court granted the next day. The Supreme Court of Nevada heard oral argument on April 9, 2026.

On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction. --- P.3d ----2026 WL 1501093. 

Chief Justice Herndon, writing for the en banc court, first addressed standing, holding that PPMM faced a credible threat of criminal prosecution for violations of the entirety of the judicial bypass provisions, and that causation and redressability requirements were satisfied against the Attorney General because that office holds supervisory powers over district attorneys and could appear in any prosecution in Nevada. The Court also held the matter was ripe, finding that PPMM faced the impossible choice of denying urgently needed medical care or risking criminal prosecution, and that the facial vagueness challenges presented purely legal questions not requiring further factual development.

Turning to the merits, the Court found the district court had erred by applying a civil vagueness standard rather than the criminal statute vagueness standard required by NRS 442.257's criminalization of violations. Under the correct standard, the Court found the Parental Notification and Judicial Bypass provisions unconstitutionally vague, reasoning that terms such as "reasonable effort" and "personally notified" provided insufficient guidance on what conduct was required, who bore the duty, and when it was satisfied, while the judicial bypass provisions gave physicians no fair notice of how to verify a patient's judicial authorization. The Court further held that PPMM demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored appellants, as the status quo prior to S.B. 510 taking effect, the public's interest in health, and the importance of freedom from unconstitutional laws outweighed competing interests. 

As of June 1, 2026, the case is ongoing.