Deanda v. Becerra

Title X is a federal grant program dedicated to ensuring that everyone in the U.S. has access to comprehensive family planning services and related preventive health services.  It benefits low-income people, the uninsured, and others who face barriers to healthcare access.  Title X has long required participating healthcare providers to make contraceptives available to adolescents on a confidential basis—without requiring parental involvement.

This case was brought by a conservative provocateur seeking to undermine the constitutional right to contraception by targeting young people’s access.  In the district court, activist judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a committed opponent of contraception and abortion, ruled that, insofar as Title X requires participants to offer contraceptive care to adolescents on a confidential basis, it is unconstitutional, and in any event, it is superseded by Texas statutes construed to require parental consent for contraceptives.

The Lawyering Project filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Power to Decide, an organization that works to empower young people to make informed decisions about family planning.  The brief argues that the district court’s constitutional analysis is deeply flawed.  First, it ignores Supreme Court precedents recognizing that both adults and minors have a fundamental right to contraception.  Second, it refuses to acknowledge the compelling interests served by Title X’s mandate to make confidential contraceptive care available to adolescents, including promoting adolescent health; reducing the teen pregnancy rate; providing opportunities for young people to achieve their educational and life goals; and promoting equity for adolescents facing socioeconomic disadvantages.  Third, it turns a blind eye to the sad reality that some families are abusive or otherwise dysfunctional.

On March 12, 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in substantial part, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Texas statutes supersede a federal regulation adopted pursuant to Title X, and declining to endorse the district court’s constitutional analysis.  The case is now closed.

Fifth Circuit Issues Decision Reversing the District’s Court’s Judgment in Substantial Part

Lawyering Project Files Amicus Curiae Brief in the Fifth Circuit on Behalf of Power to Decide

District Court Issues Decision in Plaintiff’s Favor

Plaintiff Files Complaint Initiating the Case