Attorney General Bonta Joins Multistate Coalition in Opposing Tennessee Anti-Abortion Law

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in support of a challenge to Tennessee's “abortion trafficking” law, which threatens to punish medical providers and residents alike for providing information or assistance to certain patients within Tennessee seeking to access lawful abortion care outside of Tennessee. In the brief, filed in Welty v. Dunaway, the coalition writes in support of plaintiffs-appellees, arguing that the law will chill the free flow of information and threaten access to safe and effective abortion care within their borders.  

“Tennessee’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the nation. There are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest, despite the overwhelming support for those exceptions among Democrats and Republicans alike,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are supporting the challenge to Tennessee's so-called ‘abortion trafficking’ law because we have a sovereign interest in protecting access to safe and legal abortion care within our borders and preserving the free flow of information about that care. We will not be bullied by Tennessee or any other state.”

Tennessee’s law, which took effect on July 1, 2024, purports to impose criminal and civil penalties on anyone who “recruits” a minor for the purpose of procuring an abortion, obtaining abortion medication, or concealing an abortion from the minor’s parents or legal guardian — even if the abortion at issue is accessed legally out of state. The plaintiffs-appellees in Welty v. Dunaway successfully obtained a preliminary injunction from a federal district court, blocking enforcement of this provision. Tennessee appealed and the case is now pending in the Sixth Circuit. 

In their amicus brief, the attorneys general urge the Sixth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s injunction, writing that: 

• Their States have chosen to preserve access to abortion care within their borders by enacting statutes that protect abortion access and by amending their constitutions to expressly guarantee the right to access abortion care. California’s Constitution, for example, explains that “[t]he state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.”
• Their States have received a surge of out-of-state patients, including patients from Tennessee, seeking reproductive care that they cannot access in their home states. Indeed, interstate travel for abortion care in the United States has nearly doubled since 2020.  
• In light of the prohibitions on abortion care in Tennessee and other States, more and more individuals are turning to organizations, helplines, abortion funds, and other forms of assistance to secure abortion care. But these trusted individuals and organizations may choose to significantly limit their communications, or even to not speak at all, when threatened with harsh civil and criminal liability under laws like Tennessee’s. 
• If medical providers and other residents of their States are not able to counsel individuals within Tennessee about their ability to obtain legal abortion care, those individuals — and especially minors — will face increased barriers to accessing safe care. This can result in delays in patients’ ability to access care, leading to increased health risks, lifelong complications, and death.  
• By hampering the flow of information about lawful abortion care, Tennessee’s law increases the risks associated with such care, thus impairing their States’ commitment to ensuring safe and effective abortion care is available within their own borders. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that a State has no authority to prevent its residents from accessing abortion care in other States where it is legal — much less from accessing and sharing information about such care.

Attorney General Bonta has joined two multistate amicus briefs challenging a similar Idaho law in Matsumoto v. Labrador when that case was before the district court in 2023 and the Ninth Circuit in 2024.

In filing today’s amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.