Amicus Briefs

Brief filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of the defendants motion to stay the opinion of District court that stay the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone for medication abortion and miscarriage management. The brief, filed with eleven other medical associations, outlines for the court that mifepristone is exceedingly safe and effective and that the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy restrictions on mifepristone currently in place are medically unnecessary.

Brief filed in support a motion filed by the attorney general of Washington state and a coalition of twelve states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) to enjoin the application or enforcement of the FDA’s 2023 mifepristone risk evaluation and mitigation strategy and any action by the FDA to remove mifepristone from the market or make the drug less available. The brief, filed with fourteen other medical associations, outlines for the court that mifepristone is exceedingly safe and effective and that the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy restrictions on mifepristone currently in place are medically unnecessary.

Brief filed in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to withdraw or suspend FDA approval of Mifepristone arguing that the FDA improperly used its accelerated approval authority on a drug that did not treat an “illness” or provide “meaningful therapeutic benefit” as required by 21 C.F.R. § 314, Subpart H. The brief, filed with eleven other medical associations, outlines for the court that mifepristone is exceedingly safe and effective and that the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy restrictions on mifepristone currently in place are medically unnecessary.

Brief filed in support of the defendants' position that stabilizing treatment of conditions in pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) can include abortion. The brief, filed by ACOG and nine other organizations including ACEP and the AMA, outlines for the court the ways in which the care contemplated under the federal government's recent EMTALA guidance is consistent with long-standing emergency medicine practices in the treatment of pregnant patients and that this care, which can include abortion, aligns with clinicians ethical obligations to their patients.

Brief filed in support of the US Department of Justice’s motion to enjoin the Idaho law banning nearly all abortions in the state on the grounds that the law conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The brief, filed with nine other medical associations including ACEP and the AMA, highlights for the court the ways in which the Idaho law undermines the fundamental principles of medical ethics and the provision of emergency medical care in situations covered by EMTALA, which for pregnant patients in an emergency setting can include abortion.

Brief filed in support of plaintiff’s efforts to halt enforcement of Arizona’s pre-Roe criminal ban on abortions. In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health court decision, the dissolution of the 1973 injunction of the ban would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs’ efforts to halt enforcement of Georgia’s ban on abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected (typically around six weeks gestation lmp). In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health court decision, Georgia's six week ban would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG's brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of relators' efforts to halt enforcement of Ohio’s ban on abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected (typically around six weeks gestation lmp). In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health court decision, Ohio's six week ban would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG's brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs' efforts to halt enforcement of South Carolina’s ban on abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected (typically around six weeks gestation lmp). In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health court decision, South Carolina's criminal six-week ban would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG's brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs' efforts to halt enforcement of Kentucky’s "trigger ban" on abortion as well as the state's ban on abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected (typically around six weeks gestation lmp). In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health court decision, Kentucky's criminal ban and six week ban would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG's brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs’ efforts to halt enforcement of West Virginia’s pre-Roe statute banning abortion. In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Court decision the state is threatening to enforce the criminal abortion ban, which would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that bans of this type are not based on medicine or scientific evidence, threaten the health of pregnant people, disproportionately harm patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and interfere in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs’ efforts to halt enforcement of Utah’s so called “trigger ban” on abortion. In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Court decision Utah’s criminal abortion ban went into effect outlawing nearly all abortions in the state. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that the ban is not based on medicine or scientific evidence, it threatens the health of pregnant people in Utah, it disproportionately harms patients of color, people in rural areas, and low income patients, and it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, undermining principles of medical ethics.

Brief filed in the New York Court of Appeals in support of defendant-appellants. Plaintiffs in the case allege that the preterm delivery of their infant resulted in the child's later autism diagnosis. While the plaintiffs' expert cited articles showing a statistical correlation between extreme prematurity/low birth weight and autism, he admitted that this correlation was not proof of causation and the true cause of autism is unknown. ACOG's brief, filed with the AMA, outlined for the court the critical importance of excluding expert testimony on causation that relies on hindsight to establish legal liability and is not based on medical evidence.

Brief filed in the Middle District of Alabama in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The case challenges Alabama’s law banning gender-affirming care for children and adolescents. The brief ACG joined outlines for the court that gender-affirming care is the evidence-based and medically appropriate treatment for children and adolescents with gender-dysphoria and that withholding this care is traumatic and harmful to these patients and their families.

Brief filed in the Nevada Supreme Court, in a case where the state brought felony charges against a woman for using marijuana and other substances, which the state alleged caused her stillbirth and thus violated the state's statue criminalizing self-managed abortion. ACOG's brief explained that the causes of stillbirth are complex and often impossible to determine, thus the causal link put forth by the state is not based in medical evidence. Moreover, prosecuting people for the outcomes of their pregnancies harms public health and deters people from seeking appropriate health care.

Brief filed in Texas Supreme Court in support of plaintiff-appellees’ response to petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs in the case are challenging guidance from the Governor and Attorney General, which require the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) to investigate families of transgender children based on reports that the families have sought medically recommended gender-affirming care for their children. The guidance would also require teachers, doctors, and the general public to report anyone who provides or is suspected to provide treatment for gender dysphoria; failure to report would carry criminal penalties. The brief ACOG joined outlined for the court that gender-affirming care is the medically recommended treatment for gender dysphoria. The guidance from the state not only the hurts transgender youths and their families by threatening them for accessing needed care, but puts health care professionals in the ethically untenable position of either facing civil and criminal penalties for failure to report or withholding necessary and desired care from their patients.

Brief filed in the Montana Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs challenging a set of abortion restrictions including a ban on dispensing mifepristone by mail, a set of medically inaccurate informed consent and ultrasound requirements, and a 20 week gestational age ban. ACOG’s brief outlines for the court that abortion is an extremely safe and essential component of reproductive health care and that the restrictions at issue in the case undermine the patient-physician relationship, put clinicians in an ethically challenging position, and hinder access to care in ways that disproportionately impact marginalized patients.

Brief filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of plaintiffs challenging South Dakota’s requirement that a patient seeking an abortion to visit a “Pregnancy Help Center” during the waiting period between when they receive initial abortion counseling from their clinician and when they obtain the abortion. The state maintains that this visit to an unrelated third party is part of the informed consent process for abortion care. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that informed consent is an essential part of the ethical practice of medicine, and foundational to the relationship between patients and their health care team. Requiring this additional visit to an organization unrelated to their medical care would not only delay access for many people, but also represents a significant intrusion into the patient-physician relationship.

Brief filed in Texas Court of Appeals in support of plaintiff-appellees’ emergency motion for temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in the case are challenging guidance from the Governor and Attorney General, which require the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) to investigate families of transgender children based on reports that the families have sought medically recommended gender-affirming care for their children. The guidance would also require teachers, doctors, and the general public to report anyone who provides or is suspected to provide treatment for gender dysphoria; failure to report would carry criminal penalties. The brief ACOG joined outlined for the court that gender-affirming care is the medically recommended treatment for gender dysphoria. The guidance from the state not only the hurts transgender youths and their families by threatening them for accessing needed care, but puts health care professionals in the ethically untenable position of either facing civil and criminal penalties for failure to report or withholding necessary and desired care from their patients.

Brief filed in Texas District Court in support of plaintiffs application for temporary injunction. Plaintiffs in the case are challenging guidance from the Governor and Attorney General, which require the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) to investigate families of transgender children based on reports that the families have sought medically recommended gender-affirming care for their children. The guidance would also require teachers, doctors, and the general public to report anyone who provides or is suspected to provide treatment for gender dysphoria; failure to report would carry criminal penalties. The brief ACOG joined outlined for the court that gender-affirming care is the medically recommended treatment for gender dysphoria. The guidance from the state not only the hurts transgender youths and their families by threatening them for accessing needed care, but puts health care professionals in the ethically untenable position of either facing civil and criminal penalties for failure to report or withholding necessary and desired care from their patients.

Brief filed in the US Supreme Court in support of respondents and in opposition to petition to stay. The plaintiffs in the case challenged the OSHA vaccination and testing mandate for employees of large companies (more than 100 employees). The brief ACOG joined argued that COVID-19 transmission is common in the workplace and that requiring vaccination and testing is an important tool to stop the spread of the virus.

Brief filed in 9th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees and cross appellants. The case challenges an Arizona ban on abortions sought because of genetic abnormalities and well as a statute designating an “unborn child” of any gestational are as a person under existing Arizona laws. ACOG’s brief outlines how these two laws criminalize routine medical procedures, intrude on the patient-physician relationship, and are contrary to the principles of medical ethics.

Brief field in the Middle District of North Carolina in support of plaintiffs. The case is a challenge to the exclusion of gender-affirming care from coverage under the insurance plan for North Carolina state employees and their families. The brief outlined that gender-affirming care is the medically appropriate and evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria and that insurance coverage is critical to patient access.

Brief filed in the 7th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees and affirmance. Plaintiffs challenged a series of Indiana abortion restrictions including a telemedicine ban, a physician-only law, and a hospitalization/ambulatory surgery center requirement for 2nd trimester procedures. ACOG’s brief highlighted for the court that abortion is a safe procedure and that the restrictions at issue are medically unnecessary burdens on access to care.

Brief filed in Iowa Supreme Court in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees. Cas challenges Iowa’s 24-hour waiting period to obtain an abortion. ACOG’s brief outlined how the waiting period is not medically necessary, creates significant and harmful barriers to access, and prevents physicians from acting in a manner consistent with their best medical judgement.

Brief filed in the Supreme Court in support of plaintiff-petitioner's petition to reinstate the district court's injunction of Texas SB 8, which effectively bans abortion if fetal cardiac activity can be detected and allows private individuals to enforce the statute through civil lawsuits. In their brief, ACOG and other medical organizations inform the court that abortion is a safe and essential component of reproductive care. By effectively banning abortion care, the law prevents pregnant people from accessing medical necessary care and harms the health and welfare of Texans; this harm falls disproportionately on communities that are already marginalized. Furthermore, the law undermines the patient-physician relationship and violates the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, which form the bedrock of the ethical practice of medicine.

Brief filed in the Supreme Court in support of plaintiff-petitioner's emergency petition to uphold the district court's injunction of Texas SB 8, which effectively bans abortion if fetal cardiac activity can be detected and allows private individuals to enforce the statute through civil lawsuits. In their brief, ACOG and other medical organizations inform the court that abortion is a safe and essential component of reproductive care. By effectively banning abortion care, the law prevents pregnant people from accessing medical necessary care and harms the health and welfare of Texans; this harm falls disproportionately on communities that are already marginalized. Furthermore, the law undermines the patient-physician relationship and violates the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, which form the bedrock of the ethical practice of medicine.

Brief filed in the 5th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellee’s challenge to Texas SB 8, which effectively bans abortion if fetal cardiac activity can be detected and allows private individuals to enforce the statute through civil lawsuits. In their brief, ACOG and other medical organizations inform the court that abortion is a safe and essential component of reproductive care. By effectively banning abortion care, the law prevents pregnant people from accessing medical necessary care and harms the health and welfare of Texans; this harm falls disproportionately on communities that are already marginalized. Furthermore, the law undermines the patient-physician relationship and violates the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, which form the bedrock of the ethical practice of medicine.

Brief filed in the Supreme Court in support of plaintiff-respondent’s challenge to Mississippi’s ban on abortion procedures after 15 weeks gestation. In its brief, ACOG and other medical organizations laid out for the court that abortion is a safe procedure and that 15 weeks gestation is long before viability. The brief also outlines the ways in which barring access to care harms the health and safety of patients in Mississippi and how the ban intrudes on the patient-physician relationship by limiting a physician’s ability to provide the health care that the patient has decided, in consultant with their physician, is in their best interest.

Brief filed in the 4th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees’ and affirmance. Plaintiffs challenged South Carolina’s ban on abortion after six weeks of gestation. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that abortion is a safe procedure and that banning abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity harms patients and undermines the patient-physician relationship.

Brief filed in the 4th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees and affirmance. Plaintiffs in the case challenged South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from the list of qualified providers in its Medicaid program. The removal from the list essentially “defunds” Planned Parenthood in the state, leaving many low-income women patients without family planning and reproductive health services.

Brief filed in the 6th Circuit in support of Plaintiff-Appellees who challenged Tennessee’s 48-hour waiting period to obtain an abortion. ACOG’s brief outlined how the waiting period is not medically necessary, creates significant and harmful barriers to access, and prevents physicians from acting in a manner consistent with their best medical judgement.

Brief filed in the Middle District of Georgia in support of plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs were a group of women in ICE detention at the Irwin County Detention Center. They allege that they were subject to a series of invasive, medically unindicated, and non-consensual gynecologic medical procedures. ACOG’s brief outlined how the alleged treatment was a violation of medical ethics and informed consent.

Brief filed in the US Supreme Court in support of respondents on a petition for certiorari. The case challenged Arkansas and New Hampshire’s proposed work requirements for their respective state Medicaid programs. ACOG’s brief outlined why this barrier to basic medical care is problematic for public health.

Brief filed in the Colorado Supreme Court in support of petition for writ of certiorari. Medical liability case where plaintiffs’ expert relied upon a theory of injury (cranial compressive ischemic encephalopathy), which is not supported by medical evidence. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court the importance of excluding expert testimony not based on science and medical evidence.

Brief filed in the 11th Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees. Case challenges Georgia’s ban on abortion after six weeks of gestation. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that abortion is a safe procedure and that banning abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity harms patients and undermines the patient-physician relationship.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request to the 5th Circuit en banc panel to affirm the lower court’s injunction of Texas’ ban on the D&E method of providing an abortion. ACOG’s brief outlined for the court that abortion is a safe procedure and that banning abortion the most common method of abortion in the second trimester harms patients and undermines the patient-physician relationship.

Brief filed in Georgia State Court of Appeals in support of Appellants. Case was brought against an abortion clinic by the neighboring businesses. Neighboring businesses accused the clinic of creating a nuisance in the office park because of the protestors at the clinic. ACOG’s brief outlined how holding clinics responsible for the protestors’ action would create potentially unlimited liability for the clinics and cause them to close.

Brief filed in the 6th Circuit in support of Plaintiff-Appellees challenging Tennessee’s ban on abortion starting at six weeks of gestation as well as banning abortions sought for specific reasons, including potential diagnosis of fetal anomalies.

Brief filed in the Southern District of New York in support of plaintiffs challenging the elimination of non-discrimination protections under Section 1557 of the ACA. The proposed changes would roll back protections for transgender patients, patients seeking pregnancy-related care, and patients with limited English proficiency.

Brief filed in the California Court of Appeals in support of defendant. The defendant was arrested and charged with murder after experiencing a stillbirth. The prosecutor argued that the defendant’s use of methamphetamines during her pregnancy caused the stillbirth. ACOG’s brief, filed along with other medical, addiction treatment, and advocacy organizations, outlines for the court that addiction is a complex medical issue and that medical and scientific evidence show that the wellbeing of pregnant people, their pregnancies, and their children is better served by treatment as opposed to prosecution for drug use while pregnant.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief filed in the California Court of Appeals in support of defendant’s petition for habeus corpus. The defendant was arrested and charged with murder after experiencing a stillbirth. The prosecutor argued that the defendant’s use of methamphetamines during her pregnancy caused the stillbirth. ACOG’s brief, filed along with other medical, addiction treatment, and advocacy organizations, outlines for the court that addiction is a complex medical issue and that medical and scientific evidence show that the wellbeing of pregnant people, their pregnancies, and their children is better served by treatment as opposed to prosecution for drug use while pregnant.

Brief filed in the Supreme Court in support of intervenor-petitioner’s request that the Court take up a case on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate. In its brief ACOG, the AMA, and other medical societies laid for the court how the key health care provisions (e.g. preventative services, Medicaid expansion) of the ACA are independent of the individual mandate challenged in this case and should remain in force. The brief also outlines the crisis that would be created in the health care system if the ACA was invalidated during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brief filed in the California Court of Appeals in support of defendant’s petition for habeus corpus. The defendant was arrested and charged with murder after experiencing a stillbirth. The prosecutor argued that the defendant’s use of methamphetamines during her pregnancy caused the stillbirth. ACOG’s brief, filed along with other medical, addiction treatment, and advocacy organizations, outlines for the court that addiction is a complex medical issue and that medical and scientific evidence show that the wellbeing of pregnant people, their pregnancies, and their children is better served by treatment as opposed to prosecution for drug use while pregnant.

Brief filed in the Sixth Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees’ position that the lower court’s injunction of Tennessee’s executive order should remain in place. Plaintiffs challenged the Tennessee order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in the Eleventh Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees’ position that the lower court’s injunction of the Alabama State Health Officer’s order should remain in place. Plaintiffs challenged the Alabama order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include both medication and procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in the Eighth Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees’ position that the lower court’s injunction of the Arkansas Department of Health’s order should remain in place. Plaintiffs challenged the Arkansas order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in the Southern District of Ohio in support of plaintiff’s request that the court halt enforcement of the Ohio Department of Health’s order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in the Tenth Circuit in support of plaintiff-appellees’ position that the lower court’s injunction of Oklahoma’s executive order should remain in place. Plaintiffs challenged the Governor’s executive order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include both medication and procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in support of respondents request that the U.S. Supreme Court affirm the lower court’s decision halting enforcement of the HHS rules permitting a wide range of employers to opt out of covering contraception through their employer-sponsored health plans if they have religious, or non-religious, moral objections. ACOG’s brief highlights the for the court the importance of contraception as essential preventative health care, notes that cost is often a barrier to access that prevents use of contraception, and outlines the way that the HHS rule intrudes on the patient-physician relationship.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s request that the Fifth Circuit enforce the Texas executive order limiting elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the State interpreted to include both medication and procedural abortions. ACOG’s brief, joined by numerous other medical organizations, outlined for the court that abortion is essential, safe, and time-sensitive health care and that the State’s order severely restricting access harms women and poses a threat to medical professionals in the state.

Brief filed in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in support of defendant-appellant Johns Hopkins Bayview. The brief illustrated for the court that if the court found the defendant hospital liable because physicians provided relevant medical information to a patient and respected that patient’s right to refuse recommended care, the court would upend longstanding principles of medical ethics and legal precedent on informed consent.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Second Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Second Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellee’s request for the Sixth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s injunction of Ohio’s reason ban on abortion procedures, which carries criminal and licensure penalties for physicians. ACOG’s brief outlines for the court that this restriction intrudes on the patient-physician relationship and erodes foundational principles of medical ethics including beneficence and patient autonomy.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Seventh Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Ninth Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Ninth Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees’ request that the Ninth Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellee’s request for the Eighth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s injunction of Missouri’s abortion restrictions, including a series of nested gestational age bans (starting at 8 weeks, LMP) and a reason ban. The laws at issue carry criminal and licensure penalties for physicians. ACOG’s brief outlines for the court that these restrictions have no medical or patient safety justification, erode the patient-physician relationship and the foundations of medical ethics, and harm women’s health overall in Missouri.

Brief in support of plaintiff-respondents’ request that the Supreme Court reject the Government’s motion for a stay of the lower court’s injunction of the changes to rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factors in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiffs-appellees’ request that the Fourth Circuit uphold the lower court’s injunction of the changes to the rules around public charge determinations in immigration proceedings. Under the new rules, use of non-cash public benefits such as health care, nutrition, and housing assistance programs by low-income immigrants would be considered as a heavily weighted negative factor in decisions on certain types of immigration applications such as green cards. The brief ACOG filed along with other medical organizations lays out for the court how these rules would lead to discriminatory immigration decisions and harm vulnerable populations in immigrant communities, especially children, pregnant and postpartum women, and individuals with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellee’s request for the Eighth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s injunction of Arkansas’ abortion restrictions, including an 18-week gestational age ban and a reason ban as well as an Ob-Gyn board certification requirement. The laws at issue carry criminal and licensure penalties for physicians. ACOG’s brief outlines for the court that these restrictions have no medical or patient safety justification, erode the patient-physician relationship and the foundations of medical ethics, and harm women’s health overall in Arkansas.

Brief in support of movant-appellant’s request that the Fifth Circuit reverse the lower court’s decision. This case was brought by a group of individuals and an employer who challenged the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement because purchasing a plan that covers contraception conflicts with their religious beliefs. The lower court enjoined the federal government from enforcing the requirement to purchase a plan with contraceptive coverage. The brief ACOG filed illustrates for the court that contraception is an essential component of women’s preventative health care and that providing contraceptive coverage at no additional cost is important to individual patient access and public health overall.

Brief filed in the Ninth Circuit in support of Plaintiff-Appellants' challenge to the Idaho law requiring the reporting of 37 "complications" of abortion, a procedure which has been found to be very safe. The law's vague and scientifically unsound reporting requirements create burdens on access to care for patients and impede the practice of medicine for physicians.

Brief filed in support of plaintiffs’ position on a series of cross-motions for summary judgement in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. Plaintiffs challenged changes to the Title X rules, which dictate mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limit providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermine protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care. The brief outlines for the court the ways in which these changes are contrary to foundational principles of clinical practice and medical ethics and erode the patient-physician relationship.

Brief in support of plaintiff's challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court to a Louisiana law that requires any physician providing abortions to hold admitting privilege at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where the abortion care is being provided. The law at issue in the case is nearly identical to the Texas law that the Court found to be unconstitutional in the 2016 Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt decision.

Brief in support of appellee requesting that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals uphold the lower court’s finding that Oklahoma’s child neglect statute does not allow for prosecution of pregnant people for their actions during their pregnancies. The brief outlines for the court that addiction is a complex medical issue and that medical and scientific evidence show that the wellbeing of pregnant people, their pregnancies, and their children is better served by treatment as opposed to prosecution for drug use while pregnant.

Brief in support of defendants' position that the 2016 amendments to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act do not violate plaintiffs’ rights of religious expression. ACOG’s brief supports the amendments because, consistent with ACOG’s ethics documents and principles of informed consent, the amendments ensure that, when health care providers refuse to provide standard medical treatment to their patients on religious grounds (as permitted under the HCRCA), patients will nevertheless receive information about their condition, prognosis, and treatment options.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellants’ position that the lower court’s decision should be reversed. The brief argues that by allowing the Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance (“STLDI”) Rule to go into effect, the lower court’s decision would have devastating effects on the Affordable Care Act. The STLDI Rule would allow inexpensive plans meant to provide coverage for short gaps between insurance plans to be sold for longer coverage periods alongside ACA compliant plans. STLDI plans are not subject to the ACA’s required consumer protections and coverage for essential health benefits and erode the functioning of the ACA marketplace.

Brief in support of plaintiff-petitioner's request for the US Supreme Court to consider Kentucky’s mandatory ultrasound law. The law at issue requires that prior to an abortion, a provider must perform an ultrasound, allow the patient to see the images of the fetus, and describe those images to the patient. This process is medically unnecessary, can be traumatic for the patient, is in direct contradiction to the principles of informed consent, and jeopardizes the patient-physician relationship.

Brief in support of defendant-respondent’s position that the noneconomic damages cap enacted by the Oregon State legislature is allowed under the Oregon Constitution and is not limited by the Constitution’s remedy clause. The brief further explains why the limit on noneconomic damages is necessary given the current environment for medical practice in the state of Oregon.

Brief in support of plaintiff-respondents' request that the Supreme Court affirm the 9th Circuit's decision on Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals ("DACA"). The brief argues that the 9th Circuit was correct in its finding that in rescinding DACA protection, the Federal Government did not consider the reliance interests of, for example, medical students, medical schools, medical professionals, and the health care system overall and as such DACA protections should remain in force.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' request to the 6th Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of Kentucky's ban on the D&E method of providing an abortion. The law includes criminal penalties for providers.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees request to the 4th Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' request to the D.C. Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of new Department of Labor rules that allow loosely connected groups of employers to form an association and qualify as an “employer” with the sole purpose of creating an Association Health Plan. These plans are more widely available under the rule, but are not subject to the ACA coverage requirements for Essential Health Benefits, pre-existing conditions, and other consumer protections.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees request to the 9th Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referralss to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees request to the 9th Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees request to the 9th Circuit to affirm the lower court's injunction of the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiff's efforts to enjoin a HHS regulation that would permit a wide range of medical providers, employers, pharmacies, insurance plans, health care workers, and others to refuse to provide care, referrals, or take other steps that are part of the health care process (i.e. fill prescriptions, provide information etc.) if the person or entity has a religious objection to such care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' motion for en banc rehearing by the full 9th Circuit in the case challenging the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of Plaintiff- Appellee's request for rehearing by the full 6th Circuit to reverse the hearing panel's decision that allowed Kentucky's mandatory ultrasound law to go into effect. The law requires that prior to an abortion, a provider must perform an ultrasound, allow the patient to see the images of the fetus, and describe those images to the patient. This process is medically unnecessary, can be traumatic for the patient, is in direct contradiction to the principles of informed consent, and jeopardizes the patient-physician relationship.

Brief in support of plaintiff-petitioner's request to U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case challenging a Louisiana law that requires any physician providing abortions to hold admitting privilege at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where the abortion care is being provided. The law at issue in the case is nearly identical to the Texas law that the Court found to be unconstitutional in the 2016 Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt decision.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' request to the 9th Circuit to uphold the lower court's injunction of the HHS rules permitting a wide range of employers to opt out of covering contraception through their employer-sponsored health plans if they have religious, or non-religious, moral objections.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' efforts to enjoin the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' efforts to enjoin the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' efforts to enjoin the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' efforts to enjoin the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' efforts to enjoin the new Title X rule, which dictates mandatory referrals to prenatal care for pregnant patients, limits providers’ ability to answer their patients’ questions including discussion of abortion as an option, and undermines protections for low-income people who seek evidence-based reproductive health care.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' request for the 6th Circuit to uphold the lower court's ruling enjoining the enforcement and interpretation of a Kentucky law that requires clinics that provide abortion care to have a written patient transfer agreement with a local hospital and a transportation agreement with an ambulance provider.

Brief in support of intervenor-appellants' position that invalidation of the ACA would lead to significant public health harms. These harms include loss of protection for those with pre-existing conditions, re-instatement of annual and lifetime limits on care, loss of coverage for preventative services, and loss of coverage for individuals under 26 on their parents' insurance.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees' request to the 3rd Circuit to uphold the lower court's injunction of the HHS rules permitting a wide range of employers to opt out of covering contraception through their employer-sponsored health plans if they have religious, or non-religious, moral objections.

Brief in support of plaintiff-appellees request to affirm the lower court's ruling that enjoined South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from the list of qualified providers in its Medicaid program. The removal from the list essentially “defunds” Planned Parenthood in the state, leaving many low-income women without family planning and reproductive health services.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' effort to enjoin the HHS rules that permit a wide range of employers to opt out of covering contraception through their employer-sponsored health plans if they have religious, or non-religious, moral objections.

Brief in support of plaintiffs' effort to enjoin the HHS rules that permit a wide range of employers to opt out of covering contraception through their employer-sponsored health plans if they have religious, or non-religious, moral objections.