For Attorneys
Attorneys interested in the work of the Reproductive Rights Task Force can find helpful information and resources below.
Court Filings By the United States
- U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (1:22-cv-329)
- United States' Complaint, August 2, 2022
- United States’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (including supporting memorandum and proposed order), plus supporting declarations of Lee A. Fleisher, M.D., Dr. Corrigan, Dr. Cooper, Dr. Seyb, David R. Wright, Barbara Shadle, and Lisa Newman, August 8, 2022
- United States’ Reply in Support of Its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, plus supporting declarations of Lee A. Fleisher, M.D., Dr. Corrigan, Dr. Huntsburger, and Dr. Cooper, and Idaho Bureau of Vital Statistics information, August 19, 2022
- United States’ Consolidated Opposition to Motions for Reconsideration, October 12, 2022
- United States’ Supplemental Brief in Opposition to the Motions for Reconsideration, February 21, 2023
- United States’ Opposition to the Legislature’s Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, July 24, 2023
- United States’ Opposition to Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction, August 2, 2024
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (23-35440, 23-35450)
- United States’ Response to Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, September 1, 2023
- United States’ Consolidated Brief, September 8, 2023
- United States’ Emergency Motion for Reconsideration En Banc of Published Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal (Relief Requested by October 10, 2023), September 30, 2023
- United States’ Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Reconsideration En Banc of Published Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal (Relief Requested by October 10, 2023), October 5, 2023
- United States’ Consolidated Brief, October 15, 2024
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (23-35153)
- United States’ Brief, and Supplemental Excerpts of Record, September 11, 2023
- Supreme Court of the United States (23A469, 23A470)
- United States’ Response in Opposition to the Applications for a Stay, November 30, 2023
- Supreme Court of the United States (23-726, 23-727)
- United States’ Brief for the Respondent, March 21, 2024
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (5:22-cv-185)
- United States’ Motion to Dismiss, plus its brief in support (and in opposition to Texas’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction) and supporting declarations, August 15, 2022
- United States’ Surreply, August 23, 2022
- United States’ Motion for Clarification, September 1, 2022
- United States’ Reply in Support of Motion for Clarification, September 26, 2022
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (23-10246)
- United States’ Brief for Appellants, and Record Excerpts, May 1, 2023
- United States’ Reply Brief for Appellants, August 4, 2023
- Supreme Court of the United States (23-1076)
- United States’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, April 1, 2024
- United States’ Reply Brief for the Petitioners, September 4, 2024
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2:22-cv-223)
- United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, and supporting exhibits, January 13, 2023
- United States’ Response to Order Proposing Advancement of Trial on the Merits and Consolidation with Preliminary-Injunction Hearing, February 10, 2023
- United States’ Opposition to the States of Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho’s Motion to Intervene, December 15, 2023
- United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, November 1, 2024
- United States’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, December 6, 2024
- United States’ Motion to Dismiss Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, January 18, 2025
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (23-10362)
- United States’ Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, and Addendum, April 10, 2023
- United States’ Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, April 12, 2023
- United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, April 12, 2023
- United States’ Brief for Federal Appellants, and Record Excerpts, April 26, 2023
- United States' Reply Brief for Federal Appellants, May 12, 2023
- Supreme Court of the United States (22A902)
- Supreme Court of the United States (23-235)
- United States’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, September 8, 2023
- United States’ Reply Brief for the Petitioners, November 21, 2023
- United States’ Brief for the Federal Petitioners, January 23, 2024
- United States’ Response in Opposition to the Motion of Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas for Leave to Intervene, February 1, 2024
- United States’ Reply Brief for the Federal Petitioners, March 15, 2024
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (1:23-cv-3026)
- United States’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and supporting exhibits, March 17, 2023
- United States’ Motion for Clarification, April 10, 2023
- United States’ Response in Opposition to State Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene, April 13, 2023
- United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, December 11, 2024
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (23-35294)
- United States’ Brief for Federal Appellees, and Supplemental Excerpts of Record, October 10, 2023
- U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (1:17-cv-493)
- United States’ Motion to Stay Proceedings, May 4, 2023
- United States’ Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings, May 22, 2023
- United States’ Letter in Support of a Stay of Proceedings Pending District Court Proceedings in Washington v. FDA, June 20, 2023
- United States’ Reply in Support of a Stay Pending District Court Proceedings in Washington v. FDA, July 5, 2023
- United States’ Combined Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, December 3, 2024
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (3:23-cv-19)
- United States’ Motion to Stay Proceedings, June 5, 2023
- United States’ Combined Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and In Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings, and Declaration and Exhibits, June 5, 2023
- United States’ Combined Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings, June 30, 2023
- United States’ Combined Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, December 18, 2024
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (6:22-cv-1275)
- United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, and supporting appendix, January 17, 2023
- United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, and supporting appendix, January 17, 2023
- Statement of Interest of the United States in FemHealth USA, Inc. d/b/a carafem v. Williams, et al., 3:22-cv-565 (M.D. Tenn.), regarding the FACE Act
- Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Williams, et al., 22-5915 (6th Cir.), regarding the FACE Act
- Statement of Interest of the United States in Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, 2:23-cv-450 (M.D. Ala.), and West Alabama Women’s Center, et al., v. Marshall, 2:23-cv-451 (M.D. Ala.), regarding the constitutional right to travel
- Supplemental Statement of Interest of the United States in Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, 2:23-cv-450 (M.D. Ala.), and West Alabama Women’s Center, et al., v. Marshall, 2:23-cv-451 (M.D. Ala.), regarding the constitutional right to travel
Office of Legal Counsel Opinions
The Office of Legal Counsel drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions for the convenience of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public.
Linked below are Office of Legal Counsel opinions that the Office has determined are appropriate for publication and that relate to the work of the Reproductive Rights Task Force.
Federal employees performing their duties in a manner authorized by federal law, while on a federal enclave within a state that criminalizes such authorized conduct, would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law.
Application of the Assimilative Crimes Act to Conduct of Federal Employees Authorized by Federal Law
The rule issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs on Reproductive Health Services, 87 Fed. Reg. 55,287 (Sept. 9, 2022), is a lawful exercise of VA’s authority. States may not impose criminal or civil liability on VA employees—including doctors, nurses, and administrative staff—who provide or facilitate abortions or related services in a manner authorized by federal law, including VA’s rule. The Supremacy Clause bars state officials from penalizing VA employees for performing their federal functions, whether through criminal prosecution, license revocation proceedings, or civil litigation.
The Hyde Amendment’s prohibition barring the Department of Health and Human Services from expending covered funds for any abortion does not bar HHS from expending covered funds to provide transportation for women seeking abortions in circumstances in which HHS has the requisite statutory authority and appropriations to provide such transportation.
Application of the Hyde Amendment to the Provision of Transportation for Women Seeking Abortions
The Department of Defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for service members and their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that DoD cannot itself perform due to statutory restrictions. DoD may lawfully expend funds to pay for such travel pursuant to both its express statutory authorities and, independently, the necessary expense doctrine.
Section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully.
Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortions
Legal Assistance Convening
The President’s Executive Order on Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services directed the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President to convene a meeting of private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest organizations in order to encourage lawyers to represent and assist patients, providers, and third parties lawfully seeking these services throughout the country. That convening occurred on July 29, 2022, and the Department has continued to engage with the legal community since then on access to justice and legal representation issues.