Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROCHELLE GARZA, as guardian ad litem to
unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated,
c/o ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HARGAN, Acting Secretary of Health
and Human Services
U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201;
STEPHEN WAGNER, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Administration for Children and
Families, in his official and individual
capacity
330 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201; and
SCOTT LLOYD, Director of Office of
Refugee Resettlement, in his official and
individual capacity
330 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv- _____

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
(Interference with minor’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion)
Plaintiff Rochelle Garza, court-appointed guardian ad litem to minor J.D., on behalf a
class of similarly situated pregnant unaccompanied immigrant minors in the legal custody of the
federal government, for her complaint in the above-captioned matter, alleges as follows:

1

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 17

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

There are currently thousands of unaccompanied immigrant minors (also known

as unaccompanied children, or “UCs”) in the legal custody of the federal government. These
young people are extremely vulnerable: Many have come to the United States fleeing abuse and
torture in their home countries; many have been sexually abused or assaulted either in their home
countries, during their long journey to the United States, or after their arrival; some have also
been trafficked for labor or prostitution in the United States or some other country; and many
have been separated from their families.
2.

The federal government is legally required to provide these young people with

basic necessities, such as housing, food, and access to emergency and routine medical care,
including family planning services, post-sexual assault care, and abortion. And as is true with
everyone in the United States, the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing an
“undue burden” on the right to obtain an abortion.
3.

Defendants have recently revised nationwide policies that allow them to wield an

unconstitutional veto power over unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion in
violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Under these nationwide policies, Defendants also
force unaccompanied minors who request abortion to visit a pre-approved anti-abortion crisis
pregnancy center, which requires the minor to divulge the most intimate details of her life to an
entity hostile to their abortion decision, in violation of her First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Defendants also force minors to notify parents or other family members of their request for
abortion and/or the termination of their pregnancy, or notify family members themselves, in
violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
4.

Recently, an unaccompanied immigrant minor in the legal custody of the federal

government, J.D., learned she was pregnant and told the shelter in Texas where she lives that she
would like to have an abortion. Because Texas requires parental consent or a judicial waiver of
that requirement, J.D. (for “Jane Doe;” a motion to refer to her by pseudonymous initials will be
forthcoming) went to court and, with the assistance of an attorney ad litem and a guardian ad

2

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 17

litem, received judicial permission to consent to the abortion on her own. Defendants have,
however, taken the position that J.D. is prohibited from accessing an abortion: Defendants will
not transport her for the abortion, nor will they allow anyone else to do so. Defendants are
essentially holding J.D. hostage to prevent her from getting an abortion in blatant violation of
J.D.’s constitutional rights.
5.

Defendants have also forced J.D. to visit a religious, anti-abortion crisis

pregnancy center, and, over J.D.’s objections, told J.D.’s mother that J.D. was pregnant. To
vindicate her constitutional rights to terminate her pregnancy and to avoid compelled speech, her
court-appointed guardian ad litem, Rochelle Garza seeks an immediate TRO to grant J.D. access
to judicially approved abortion, and on behalf of the class of similarly situated unaccompanied
immigrant minors, a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from obstructing, interfering
with, or blocking other individuals’ access to abortion.
6.

While abortion is a very safe procedure, each week of delay increases the risk

associated with it.
7.

Absent emergency injunctive relief, Defendants’ actions will have the effect of

forcing J.D. to continue her pregnancy and have a baby against her will.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This action arises under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of
the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
9.

Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2201 and 2202, by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, and by the inherent equitable
powers of this Court.
10.

Plaintiff J.D. is entitled to damages based on civil rights violations committed by

federal officials contrary to the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

3

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 17

11.

The Court has authority to award costs and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. §

12.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

2412.

PARTIES
13.

Plaintiff Rochelle Garza is the court-appointed guardian ad litem for J.D., a minor

who came to the United States without her parents from her home country. J.D. was detained by
the federal government and placed in a federally funded shelter in Texas. J.D. is years old,
pregnant, and told the staff at the shelter where she is currently housed that she wanted an
abortion. J.D. faced extreme resistance from Defendants. After Plaintiff’s counsel contacted
Defendants’ counsel, J.D. was allowed to pursue a judicial bypass in lieu of securing parental
consent for the abortion as required by Texas law. With the assistance of attorney and guardian
ad litems, J.D. secured a court order permitting her to have an abortion without parental consent.
Nevertheless, Defendants have now taken the position that they will not allow J.D. to access
abortion.
14.

J.D. was forced to cancel multiple appointments for state-mandated counseling

and the abortion due to Defendants’ obstruction, which has pushed J.D. later into pregnancy;
although abortion is very safe, each week of delay increases the risks. Abortion is approximately
14 times safer than childbirth in terms of morbidity. Absent a TRO from this Court, J.D. will be
forced to carry to term against her will.
15.

Defendants also forced J.D. to visit an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy, and over

J.D.’s objection, Defendants told J.D.’s mother about her pregnancy.
16.

Defendants’ actions have caused, and continue to cause, J.D. physical, mental,

and emotional pain and suffering.
17.

J.D. will move this Court to be referred to in this litigation by the initials “J.D.”

for “Jane Doe” to protect her privacy. She fears retaliation because she has requested an
abortion, and she does not want her family to know she is seeking an abortion.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 17

18.

J.D. sues on her own behalf and as the class representative of other similarly

situated young women.
19.

Defendant Eric Hargan is the Acting Secretary of the United States Department of

Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and is responsible for the administration and oversight of
the Department. Defendant Hargan has authority over the Administration for Children and
Families, a subdivision of HHS. By interfering with, prohibiting and/or obstructing
unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion, Defendant Hargan is violating the First
and Fifth Amendments.
20.

Defendant Steven Wagner is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration for

Children and Families. Defendant Wagner has authority over the Office of Refugee Resettlement
(“ORR”), a subdivision of Administration for Children and Families. By interfering with,
prohibiting and/or obstructing unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion, Defendant
Wagner is violating the First and Fifth Amendments. Defendant Wagner is sued in his individual
capacity.
21.

Defendant Scott Lloyd is the Director of ORR. By interfering with, prohibiting

and/or obstructing unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion, Defendant Lloyd is
violating the First and Fifth Amendments. Defendant Lloyd is sued in his individual capacity.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION
The Unaccompanied Children (“UC”) Program
22.

ORR has responsibility for the “care and custody of all unaccompanied []

children, including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1).
Unaccompanied immigrant minors are under 18 years old, have no legal immigration status, and
either have no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or there is no parent or legal
guardian in the United States able to provide care and physical custody. 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2).
23.

By statute, any federal department or agency that determines that it has an

unaccompanied immigrant minor in its custody must transfer the minor to ORR within 72 hours

5

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 17

of making that determination. Id. § 1232(b)(3). The federal government reports that in Fiscal
Year 2016, 59,692 unaccompanied immigrant minors were referred to ORR.
24.

The federal government and all of its programs are required to ensure that the best

interests of the unaccompanied immigrant minor are protected. Section 462 of the Homeland
Security Act requires ORR to “ensur[e] that the interests of the child are considered in decisions
and actions relating to the care and custody of an unaccompanied child.” 6 U.S.C. §
279(b)(1)(B).
25.

In addition, Section 235 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act directs HHS to

ensure that unaccompanied immigrant minors are “promptly placed in the least restrictive setting
that is in the best interest of the child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).
26.

Most unaccompanied immigrant minors who are referred to ORR are eventually

released from custody to parents or sponsors who live in the United States. Such minors are often
held in short-term facilities or shelters while they await release to their parents or sponsors. A
significant number of unaccompanied immigrant minors are not released to parents or sponsors,
and spend longer periods of time in custody. For some minors, ORR cannot identify an
individual who can serve as a viable sponsor. Young people who are expected to be in the
government’s custody for an extended period or those who have special needs are sometimes
transferred to group homes or a foster family. For others, ORR may determine that the minor
should be placed in a more restrictive custodial setting. Young people who are flight risks, for
example, are held in jail-like facilities with limited, if any, freedom.
Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors Are Legally Entitled to Receive Access to Reproductive
Health Care
27.

Unaccompanied immigrant minors have an acute need for reproductive health

care, which is both time-sensitive and is necessary over the course of their time in federal
custody. For example, a high number of these young women are victims of sexual assault. Some
of these women will need access to emergency contraception, and some will need access to
abortion. Any female aged 10 or older must undergo a pregnancy test within 48 hours of

6

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 17

admission to an ORR-funded facility. This is the point at which many young women first learn
they are pregnant. Many unaccompanied minors need pregnancy prevention services and/or
access to abortion during their short or long periods in ORR custody.
28.

The federal government is legally obligated to ensure that all programs that

provide care to these young people comply with the minimum requirements detailed in the
Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement, CV-85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1997) (“Flores
agreement”). The Flores agreement is a nationwide consent decree that requires the government
to provide or arrange for, among other things, “appropriate routine medical . . . care,” including
specifically “family planning services[] and emergency health care services.”
29.

Additionally, in response to its obligations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act

and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, ORR issued a regulation
requiring all ORR-funded care provider facilities to, among other things, provide unaccompanied
immigrant minors who are victims of sexual assault with access to reproductive healthcare. The
regulation states, in relevant part, that grantees providing care to unaccompanied immigrant
minors who have experienced sexual abuse while in federal custody must ensure “unimpeded
access to emergency medical treatment, crisis intervention services, emergency contraception,
and sexually transmitted infections prophylaxis.” 45 C.F.R. § 411.92(a). The regulation further
provides that grantees must ensure that a young person subject to sexual abuse is offered a
pregnancy test, and “[i]f pregnancy results from an instance of sexual abuse, [the] care provider
facility must ensure that the victim receives timely and comprehensive information about all
lawful pregnancy-related medical services.” Id. § 411.93(d). Grantees were required to comply
with this regulation by June 24, 2015.
30.

Upon information and belief, unaccompanied immigrant minors face significant

barriers to obtaining services not provided by the government and/or its grantees. For example,
even if a teen can leave the shelter, she still may not be able to obtain access to abortion or
contraceptives without assistance because she likely speaks little or no English; she may have no
support system, other than that provided by the federal program; she may have no means of

7

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 17

transportation to the doctor’s office; and she may have little or no financial resources. If she is
not informed that contraceptives and abortions are available in the United States, she may not
even know that these options exist, given that many of these young people come from countries
where abortion is illegal.
Defendants’ Interference With, Obstruction, or Prohibition On
Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors’ Access to Abortion
31.

Defendants are wielding an unconstitutional veto power over unaccompanied

immigrant minors’ access to abortion. In March 2017, ORR revised its policies to prohibit all
federally funded shelters from taking “any action that facilitates” abortion access for
unaccompanied minors in their care without “direction and approval from the Director of ORR.”
This includes scheduling appointments with medical providers, ensuring access to non-directive
options counseling, ensuring access to court to seek a judicial bypass in lieu of parental consent,
and providing access to the abortion itself.
32.

In an email to all ORR staff, then-Acting Director of ORR Ken Tota summarized

the policy: “Grantees are prohibited from taking any actions in [requests for abortion] without . .
. signed authorization from the Director of ORR.”
33.

Defendants have exercised their unconstitutional veto power to deny J.D. access

to abortion. After Plaintiff’s counsel’s intervention, Defendants permitted J.D. to seek a judicial
bypass in lieu of parental consent required by Texas law. J.D. secured that court order with the
assistance of an attorney ad litem and a guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Garza. J.D. had an
appointment scheduled with a health center for options counseling (the first step in the process of
obtaining an abortion under Texas law), but Defendants told the ad litems, Plaintiff’s counsel,
and the shelter that Defendants prohibited J.D. to be transported by her ad litems to the health

8

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 17

center. Defendants also made clear that J.D. would be prohibited from obtaining the abortion
itself.
34.

The judicial bypass order obtained for J.D. is still valid. Plaintiff Garza is ready

and able to transport J.D. to all appointments necessary for the abortion, including the statemandated options counseling sessions and the medical procedure itself.
35.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have instructed the shelter in which J.D.

resides to prohibit J.D. from leaving the facility to access abortion, and has told the shelter that if
they allow her access, they will revoke the shelter’s government grant. But for that instruction,
the shelter is willing to allow Plaintiff Garza to transport J.D. to the abortion facility.
36.

Upon information and belief, Stephen Wagner and/or Scott Lloyd personally

authorized ORR to block J.D.’s access to abortion.
37.

Defendants have also interfered with abortion access for other minors. In fact, the

Director of ORR, Scott Lloyd, has taken the position that “[g]rantees should not be supporting
abortion services pre or post-release; only pregnancy services and life-affirming options
counseling.”
38.

Defendants’ actions toward J.D. are consistent with their policy, which has been

enforced against other young women as well.
39.

For example, in March 2017, another unaccompanied minor at a federally funded

shelter in Texas decided to have an abortion. After obtaining a judicial bypass and receiving
counseling, she started the medical abortion regimen for terminating a pregnancy. This regimen
begins with a dose of mifepristone, followed by a dose of misoprostol within 48 hours later.
After the minor took the mifepristone, ORR intervened, and forced her to go to an “emergency
room of a local hospital in order to determine the health status of [her] and her unborn child.”

9

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 17

The Acting Director of ORR, Ken Tota, directed ORR as follows: “[i]f steps can be taken to
preserve the life of . . . her unborn child, those steps should be taken.” Eventually, after the
intervention of other advocates, ORR allowed the minor to complete the medication abortion and
take the second dose of pills.
40.

Furthermore, Defendant ORR Director, Scott Lloyd, has personally contacted one

or more unaccompanied immigrant minors who was pregnant and seeking abortion, and
discussed with them their decision to have an abortion. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Lloyd is trying to use his position of power to coerce minors to carry their pregnancies to term.
41.

ORR has also created a nationwide list of “Trusted Providers in HHS Cities,”

which is predominately comprised of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
42.

Crisis pregnancy centers (“CPCs”) are categorically opposed to abortion, and

generally do not provide information about pregnancy options in a neutral way. Many are also
religiously affiliated, and proselytize to women.
43.

Defendants forced J.D. to visit one of these centers for “counseling,” forcing her

to share her most private personal and medical information to an entity that is hostile to her
decision to have an abortion.
44.

Defendants have also required other minors to be counseled by crisis pregnancy

centers, both before and after the abortion, including at the explicit direction of Defendant ORR
Director Scott Lloyd.
45.

Defendants have also unconstitutionally forced unaccompanied immigrant minors

to tell their parents and/or immigration sponsors about their abortion decision, or Defendants
themselves have told minors’ family members or sponsors about the minors’ pregnancy and/or
abortion decision, against the express wishes of the minor, both before and after the abortion.

10

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 11 of 17

46.

Defendants told J.D.’s mother about J.D.’s pregnancy – over J.D.’s objections –

and are trying to force J.D. to also tell her mother she is pregnant and seeking an abortion. In
another minor’s case, Defendant Lloyd explicitly required “the grantee or the federal field staff
[to] notify her parents of the termination,” even after she had obtained a judicial bypass to be
allowed to access abortion without her parents’ involvement or knowledge.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
47.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), Plaintiff Rochelle

Garza brings this action as a class on her behalf of J.D., and on behalf of all other pregnant
unaccompanied immigrant minors in ORR custody nationwide, including those who will become
pregnant during the pendency of this lawsuit.
48.

The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. In any given year, there are

hundreds of pregnant unaccompanied minors in defendants’ custody. Joinder is inherently
impractical because the number of unnamed, future class members who will be pregnant while in
ORR custody is unknown and unknowable, especially given the transient nature of the
unaccompanied minors population and the temporal limitations of pregnancy. The young people
affected by ORR’s abortion restriction policy are geographically dispersed across the country.
Proposed class members are highly unlikely to file individual suits on their own behalf given the
practical, legal, linguistic, monetary, and fear-based barriers that prevent their ability to access
independent counsel to challenge ORR’s abortion restrictions.
49.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law, including

but not limited to whether: i) ORR’s policy of exercising a veto power over a UC’s abortion
access; ii) HHS’s policy of requiring a forced visit to an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center;

11

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 12 of 17

and iii) disclosing – or forcing the minor to disclose - to parents or immigration sponsor her
abortion decision violate the Constitution.
50.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact, including

but not limited to the implementation of Defendants’ policy and practice of obstructing or
preventing of access to abortion in the various ways detailed above.
51.

The claims of J.D. are typical of the claims of members of the Plaintiff Class.

52.

The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff

Class. The named Plaintiff has no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the
interests of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiff are experienced
civil rights attorneys and are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional litigation.
These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
53.

Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally

applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief
appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
54.

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class

would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may
therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND LIBERTY
(PLAINTIFF J.D. AND CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANTS)

12

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 13 of 17

55.

Defendants violate unaccompanied immigrant minors’ right to privacy guaranteed

by the Fifth Amendment by wielding a veto power over their abortion decisions, and obstructing,
interfering with, or blocking access to abortion, including by forcing minors to visit crisis
pregnancy centers and preventing them from going to medical facilities where they can obtain
legal abortions.
56.

Defendants violate the Fifth Amendment rights of unaccompanied minors by

revealing, or forcing the minors to reveal, information about their pregnancy and abortions to
their parents or other family members, including immigration sponsors, both before and after the
abortion.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(PLAINTIFF J.D. AND CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANTS)

57.

By compelling unaccompanied immigrant minors to discuss their decisions to

have abortions and the circumstances surrounding those decisions with crisis pregnancy centers,
and with their parents or immigration sponsors, Defendants violate the unaccompanied
immigrant minors’ rights against compelled speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY
(PLAINTIFF J.D. AND CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANTS)

58.

By requiring unaccompanied immigrant minors to disclosure their identities, their

pregnancies, and their decisions to seek or have an abortion, to a crisis pregnancy center, parents,
and/or immigration sponsors, Defendants violate the minors’ rights to informational privacy
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

13

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 14 of 17

(PLAINTIFF J.D. AND CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANTS)
59.

Defendants violate the Establishment Clause by requiring unaccompanied

immigrant minors to obtain counseling at crisis pregnancy centers that are often religiously
affiliated, and that proselytize the unaccompanied immigrant minors who are forced to go there.
60.

Defendants’ actions alleged herein endorse and impose upon the class members a

particular set of religious beliefs.
61.

Defendants’ actions alleged herein have the predominant purpose of advancing a

particular set of religious beliefs.
62.

Defendants’ actions alleged herein have the predominant effect of advancing a

particular set of religious beliefs.
63.

Defendants’ actions alleged herein are religiously coercive.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FIFTH AMENDMENT AND BIVENS
(PLAINTIFF J.D. AGAINST DEFENDANTS WAGNER AND LLOYD)
64.

Defendants Wagner and/or Lloyd acted intentionally and unlawfully in violating

Plaintiff J.D.’s clearly established rights under the Fifth Amendment by vetoing her abortion
decision and blocking her ability to obtain an abortion, and otherwise obstructing, interfering
with access to abortion, including forcing J.D. to visit a crisis pregnancy center, telling J.D.’s
mother about her pregnancy, and attempting to force J.D. to discuss her pregnancy and abortion
decision with her mother. These defendants therefore caused J.D. to suffer injuries that can be
compensated with money damages.
65.

Defendants Wagner and Lloyd acted with the intention of violating J.D.’s Fifth

Amendment rights, or with reckless indifference or callous disregard for J.D.’s Fifth Amendment
rights, thus entitling her to punitive damages.

14

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 15 of 17

66.

These violations are redressable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FIRST AMENDMENT AND BIVENS
(PLAINTIFF J.D. AGAINST DEFENDANTS WAGNER AND LLOYD)
67.

Defendants Wagner and/or Lloyd acted intentionally and unlawfully in violating

J.D.’s clearly established rights under the First Amendment to refrain from compelled speech by
forcing J.D. to visit a crisis pregnancy center and discuss her medical decisions.
68.

Defendants Wagner and Lloyd acted with reckless indifference or callous

disregard for J.D.’s First Amendment rights, thus entitling her to punitive damages.
69.

These violations are redressable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor
and:
1.

Certify this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

2.

Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Defendants’ actions, as set forth

above, violate the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment right to privacy, liberty, and informational
privacy;
3.

Enter a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Defendants from obstructing

J.D.’s access to abortion;
4.

Enter a preliminary injunction as to the Plaintiff Class;

15

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 16 of 17

5.

Enter a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from wielding a veto power

over an unaccompanied minors’ abortion decision, including interfering, obstructing, or blocking
her abortion;
6.

Enter a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from forcing unaccompanied

immigrant minors from visiting crisis pregnancy centers as a condition of having an abortion or
after an abortion;
7.

Enter a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from revealing, or forcing

unaccompanied immigrant minors to reveal, to the minors’ parents or immigration sponsors
information about the minors’ abortion decisions, either prior to or after the abortion decisions;
8.

Enter a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from retaliating against

unaccompanied immigrant minors for seeking or obtaining abortions;
9.

Award compensatory and punitive damages to J.D. against Defendants Wagner

and Lloyd in an amount to be determined at trial;
10.

Award costs and fees for this action, including attorneys’ fees;

11.

Award such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

October 13, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
/s Arthur B. Spitzer
Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960)
Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia
4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 434
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel. 202-457-0800
Fax 202-457-0805

16

 Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 17 of 17

aspitzer@acludc.org
smichelman@acludc.org
Brigitte Amiri*
Meagan Burrows*
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel. (212) 549-2633
Fax (212) 549-2652
bamiri@aclu.org
Daniel Mach (D.C. Bar No. 461652)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 675-2330
dmach@aclu.org
Jennifer L. Chou
Mishan R. Wroe
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of
Northern California, Inc.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel. (415) 621-2493
Fax (415) 255-8437
jchou@aclunc.org
mwroe@aclunc.org
Melissa Goodman
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of
Southern California
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel. (213) 977-9500
Fax (213) 977-5299
mgoodman@aclusocal.org
*Motion for admission for pro hac vice forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiff

17