A Migrant Teen Got Her Abortion. That Hasn’t Stopped the Trump Admin From Going After Her Lawyers.

“Discipline may be warranted against Jane Doe’s attorneys.”

Scott Applewhite/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to toss out an earlier ruling in the case of Jane Doe—an undocumented 17-year-old who sought and obtained an abortion last month after a high-profile legal fight with the Trump administration—and to discipline her lawyers. 

For a month beginning in late September, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), refused to allow Doe—who was being housed in a Texas refugee shelter after crossing into the country alone—to leave the shelter to obtain the abortion. They were opposed to facilitating the procedure even after Doe secured a state court order authorizing it, as well as private funding and transportation. The ACLU sued the government on behalf of Jane Doe, and her pregnancy progressed into the second trimester while the case wound through the courts. On October 24, an appeals court ordered the Trump administration to allow Doe to leave the federal refugee shelter to obtain her abortion and, on the morning of October 25, Doe terminated her pregnancy. 

The DOJ’s filing on Friday alleges that Doe’s attorneys from the ACLU lied to the government about the timing of her abortion so as to avoid another court challenge.  They argue they had told Doe’s lawyers they planned to further appeal the October 24th ruling and had asked those lawyers to inform the government when Doe planned to have her procedure. They claim Doe’s lawyers “misled” the government into thinking the abortion would take place on October 26.

 “Jane Doe’s attorneys scheduled the abortion for the early morning hours of October 25th, thereby thwarting Supreme Court review,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in an emailed statement. “In light of that, the Justice Department believes the judgment under review should be vacated, and discipline may be warranted against Jane Doe’s attorneys.”

The ACLU notes that it was under no obligation to inform the Justice Department of the procedure, and that this Supreme Court filing is an effort by the government to save face “under criticism from anti-choice activists.” 

“Having failed to seek an immediate stay when it could have, the Trump administration is now trying to deflect blame by suggesting that the ACLU failed to inform the government that Doe was going to the clinic for her abortion on the morning of October 25,” notes a release from the ACLU. “But the court order authorized an abortion, and government lawyers knew she could obtain an abortion immediately under the law.”

ACLU legal Director David Cole added, “That government lawyers failed to seek judicial review quickly enough is their fault, not ours.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend