Reproductive Freedom

Featured

U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States

Reproductive Freedom

Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States

Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court’s ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
Idaho And Moyle, Et Al. V. United States. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Reproductive Freedom

Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

The Ƶ joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of an emergency request to stay a decision issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that severely restricted the use of mifepristone — a medication used in most abortions in this country — and threatened the innovation of new drugs and the ability of Americans to access lifesaving drugs.
Danco Laboratories, Llc, V. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine; U.s. Fda V. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022
Bans Off Our Bodies Protest Sign

Reproductive Freedom

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
RFP attorneys Alexa Kolbi-Molinas and Andrew Beck heading towards the Supreme Court to argue the case.

Reproductive Freedom

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center

In 2018, the Ƶ and the Ƶof Kentucky filed a suit on behalf of Kentucky abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law banning physicians from providing a safe and medically proven abortion method called dilation and evacuation, or “D&E.” If it were to take effect, this law would prevent many patients from being able to obtain an abortion altogether. After two courts held that the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2022 that Kentucky Attorney General Cameron can continue his pursuit to push abortion out of reach by intervening in the underlying challenge to an abortion ban, which is proceeding in a lower court.
Cameron V. Emw Women’s Surgical Center. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Reproductive Freedom

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

The Ƶ, the Ƶof Texas, and coalition partners filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers and funds on July 13, 2021, challenging S.B. 8, a Texas law allowing private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy—before many know they are pregnant. The ACLU’s challenge made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court three times in as many months. After hearing oral arguments in the case, the Court issued a decision on December 10, 2021, that ended the most promising pathways to blocking the ban. The Supreme Court’s decision makes it more difficult to obtain adequate relief from the courts and gives states the green light to ban abortion using bounty-hunting schemes. Texas’ abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
Whole Woman's Health V. Jackson. Explore Case.

All Cases

121 Reproductive Freedom Cases

Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
Ohio
Feb 2026

Reproductive Freedom

Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.

In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27. In February 2026, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's permanent injunction, ruling that the requirements under Senate Bill 27 violate the state constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which took effect in December 2023 after being approved by voters. This lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ, Ƶof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Explore case
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Et Al. V. Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al.. Explore Case.
Ohio
Feb 2026
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.

Reproductive Freedom

Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.

In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27. In February 2026, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's permanent injunction, ruling that the requirements under Senate Bill 27 violate the state constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which took effect in December 2023 after being approved by voters. This lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ, Ƶof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Et Al. V. Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al.. Explore Case.
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
Arizona
Feb 2026

Reproductive Freedom

Gill et al. v. State of Arizona

A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the Ƶ (ACLU), the Ƶof Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Explore case
Gill Et Al. V. State Of Arizona. Explore Case.
Arizona
Feb 2026
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona

Reproductive Freedom

Gill et al. v. State of Arizona

A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the Ƶ (ACLU), the Ƶof Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Gill Et Al. V. State Of Arizona. Explore Case.
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Court Case
Feb 2026

Reproductive Freedom

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the Ƶand local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed. Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The Ƶand Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights. On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
Explore case
Guam Society Of Obgyns V. Guerrero. Explore Case.
Court Case
Feb 2026
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero

Reproductive Freedom

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the Ƶand local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed. Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The Ƶand Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights. On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
Guam Society Of Obgyns V. Guerrero. Explore Case.
Ƶv. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Maryland
Nov 2025

Reproductive Freedom

Ƶv. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The Ƶ (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose records related to the agency’s review of its regulations on mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed in August 2025, which seeks information about the scope of the review along with any communications between the FDA and anti-abortion organizations, state and federal officials, and politicians requesting greater restrictions on medication abortion.
Explore case
Aclu V. U.s. Food And Drug Administration. Explore Case.
Maryland
Nov 2025
Ƶv. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Reproductive Freedom

Ƶv. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The Ƶ (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose records related to the agency’s review of its regulations on mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed in August 2025, which seeks information about the scope of the review along with any communications between the FDA and anti-abortion organizations, state and federal officials, and politicians requesting greater restrictions on medication abortion.
Aclu V. U.s. Food And Drug Administration. Explore Case.
Woman holding "Abortion Access" poster at rally
Hawaii
Oct 2025

Reproductive Freedom

Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)

The Ƶ, the Ƶof Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for abortion and miscarriage care.
Explore case
Purcell V. Kennedy (formerly Chelius V. Becerra). Explore Case.
Hawaii
Oct 2025
Woman holding "Abortion Access" poster at rally

Reproductive Freedom

Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)

The Ƶ, the Ƶof Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for abortion and miscarriage care.
Purcell V. Kennedy (formerly Chelius V. Becerra). Explore Case.
1
23...