Good news, but the legal fight is far from over.
The state of Alabama cannot prosecute groups that help people leave the state for an abortion, a federal judge ruled late Monday.
The decision — one of the first to explicitly address abortion-related travel — marks a significant victory for abortion providers and supporters. If the case is appealed, which it almost certainly will be, it will go to the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, half of whose members were appointed by President Donald Trump.
If upheld, Alabama’s policy would have violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and its protection of people’s right to travel, Judge Myron H. Thompson wrote.
The case concerns statements made by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who threatened to leverage the state’s criminal conspiracy laws to prosecute people or organizations if they help Alabama residents travel elsewhere for an abortion. Marshall has not filed any lawsuits, but the threat has deterred some reproductive health providers from telling patients about options outside of Alabama, which has a near-total abortion ban in place. It has also stopped abortion funds, nonprofits that help cover the travel and medical costs associated with abortion, from supporting them.
That should change, at least for now, said Meagan Burrows, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented two reproductive health clinics among the plaintiffs in the case.
“The court’s decision today should send a strong message to any and all anti-abortion politicians who are considering similar efforts to muzzle health care providers or penalize those who assist others in crossing state lines to obtain legal abortion: Such attacks on free speech and the fundamental right to travel fly in the face of the Constitution and cannot stand,” Burrows said.
[…]
Still, abortion opponents, troubled by the rise in travel, have sought new ways to deter people from seeking care out of state — generally by targeting the organizations and individuals who support them. So far, these legal efforts have not stopped people from traveling for abortions. In Texas, some counties have passed ordinances that would outlaw using a particular road to transport someone out of state for an abortion, but this kind of ordinance is difficult to enforce and has not directly resulted in any lawsuits.
Some opponents have also attempted to use legal filings as an intimidation tactic, using them to seek information about abortion funds and other individuals who help people travel. Funds have challenged these efforts in court and refused to comply.
The Texas legislature is also debating a bill that would criminalize giving people money they could use to travel out of state for abortions, a provision aimed at abortion funds.
Idaho and Tennessee have passed laws targeting abortion-related travel for minors by threatening prison time for those who help them leave the state if they don’t have a parent’s consent. In December a federal appeals court allowed Idaho’s law to take effect; Tennessee’s has been blocked by a separate judge.
This is one ruling, in a judicial circuit that doesn’t include Texas, but it’s still important. Obviously, there’s a long way to go, and with the Lege considering bills that could greatly widen the scope of abortion prosecutions and enable further attacks on abortion funds and abortion pills, you have to expect a case will eventually come to the Fifth Circuit. For now, it’s good to have the points on the board. Going forward, well, you know. Win more elections and all that. Mother Jones has more.
IS THERE A RIGHT TO EXPORT ABORTION LIT. TO A FRIENDLIER STATE?
Speaking of interstate fights over abortion, the Seventh Circuit, on April 1, 2025, heard oral argument in Texas abortionist Dr. Alan Braid’s out-of-state challenge to S.B.8 in Chicago, which he had filed there in October 2021, shortly after the law came into effect in Texas.
Only Bloomberg Law News reported on the latest development in this strange case: See Megan Crepeau, “Texas Abortion Bounty Dispute Gets Argument 1,000 Miles Away.” (March 31, 2025), “Texas Abortion ‘Bounty Hunter’ Case Vexes Seventh Circuit Judges.” (April 1, 2025).
The oral argument recording has since been posted on the 7th Circuit’s website. It was the oldest case on the docket. The federal district court (Judge Alonso, ND Ill) had dismissed the case on discretionary federal abstention grounds in 2022 (post-Dobbs), but lack-of-fedeal-jurisdiction issues were brought up by a court-appointed amicus and were the focus on appeal even though the Court had appointed the amicus to defend the district judge. So, it got even weirder on appeal. The chief judge characterized the interpleader case as unusual and complex.
Appellee Oscar Stilley is in prison in Oklahoma and didn’t get to participate, but was interviewed by the Bloomber reporter. His state-court S.B.8 case against Braid in San Antonio has been abated, but remains unresolved.
Also see academic commentary on the off-label use of federal interpleader statute to bring constitutional challenge to civil enforcement statutes in federal court:
Parker, Delia. “Interpleader as a Vehicle for Challenging the Constitutionality of Private Citizen Action Statutes.” 92 FORDHAM L. REV. 1155 (2023); Hirczy de Mino, Wolfgang. “Federal Interpleader as a Vehicle to Attack Private Citizen Action Statutes: Response to Parker.” SSRN (2025); Rhodes, Charles W., and Howard M. Wasserman. “Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and its Imitators: the Potential for Defensive Litigation.” 75 SMU L. Rev. 187 (2022) [also available on SSRN].
The federal appeals case is Alan Braid v. Oscar Stilley, No. 22-2815 (7th Cir. 2025)
Outta-PACER Docket here:
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Alan-Braid-v-Felipe-Gomez-et-al/ca7-2022-02815