Supreme Court Throws Out Ruling Forcing Trump Admin to Help Illegal Immigrants Get Abortions

National   |   Micaiah Bilger   |   Jun 4, 2018   |   12:02PM   |   Washington, DC

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a pro-abortion ruling Monday that forced the Trump administration to help facilitate an abortion for an illegal immigrant minor.

The decision is a small but important victory for unborn babies in America because it eliminates a court precedent that sided with radical abortion activists.

The teenager in the case, “Jane Doe,” aborted her 16-week unborn baby in 2017 while staying in a government-run shelter for illegal immigrant minors and refugees. A federal appeals court sided with the ACLU, and forced the government to help facilitate her abortion in October 2017. However, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration argued it is not obliged to facilitate abortions for minors in its care, while the American Civil Liberties Union claimed every woman and girl on U.S. shores has the “right” to abort an unborn baby.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court ruling, according to Reuters. The opinion was not signed, and there were no dissents.

The high court said the matter is not debatable anymore because the teenager already aborted her baby and is no longer in federal custody. However, it also allowed other similar lawsuits to continue through the courts, the report states.

The court did not grant the government’s request for disciplinary action against the ACLU lawyers. The Trump administration said the ACLU lawyers should be disciplined because they misled the government about the time of the young woman’s abortion appointment and did not allow time for an appeal prior to the unborn baby’s abortion death.

Los Angeles Times reports more:

The justices also took no action on the administration’s request for sanctions against ACLU lawyers.

Administration lawyers had alleged the ACLU attorneys misled them by taking the young woman to see a doctor early in the morning before they could seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The ACLU disagreed and said its lawyers had reacted reasonably after a judge cleared the way for their client to have the abortion.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from

“On the one hand, all attorneys must remain aware of the principle that zealous advocacy does not displace their obligations as officers of the court,” the justices wrote in Azar vs. Garza. “On the other hand, lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communications breakdowns constitute misconduct.”

The 17-year-old “Jane Doe” came to the country illegally and was staying at a taxpayer-funded shelter in Texas when she requested an abortion. The shelter did not assist her, citing a new government policy that they offer life-affirming support to women and girls who are pregnant, according to Slate.

According to the report, the shelter took “Jane Doe” to a pro-life pregnancy resource center instead. The ACLU said the teen did not change her mind after receiving counseling, and scheduled an abortion; however, the shelter where she was staying refused to transport her to the appointment.

The ACLU sued on behalf of the teen, and after a series of appeals by the U.S. government and the ACLU, the pro-abortion legal group won in federal appeals court. The teen aborted her unborn baby the next day.

Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other abortion activists celebrated the news of the unborn baby’s abortion death.

In 2017 under President Donald Trump’s administration, the Office of Refugee Resettlement issued a new policy requiring that taxpayer-funded shelters for immigrants and refugees offer life-affirming support to women and girls who are pregnant.

Office Director Scott Lloyd, a Trump nominee, said the shelters may not take “any action that facilitates” an abortion for unaccompanied minors without his direct approval.

Lloyd said that “grantees should not be supporting abortion services … only pregnancy services and life-affirming options counseling.”

Several lawsuits challenging the policy are on-going.