Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe

Constitutional Issues

Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 110 violates the Texas Constitution's Due Course of Law Clause.Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 110 violates the Texas Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment.Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 110 violates the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause.

Rule Statements

"A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that challenges the trial court's authority to hear a case."

"Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear a particular type of case."

"The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo."

Remedies

Reversal of the trial court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.Dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Q: What is Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe about?

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on January 16, 2026.

Q: What court decided Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe?

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe decided?

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe was decided on January 16, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe?

The citation for Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what is the core dispute?

The case is Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean et al. The core dispute involves a challenge to Texas's abortion ban, specifically the civil enforcement mechanism that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and those who assist in abortions, with plaintiffs arguing it violates their First Amendment free speech rights.

Q: Who are the main parties involved in this lawsuit?

The main parties include Texas Right to Life and John Seago as plaintiffs, challenging the law, and various defendants including Allison Van Stean, Planned Parenthood entities, specific doctors like Bhavik Kumar, M.D., and several reproductive rights organizations such as the North Texas Equal Access Fund and the Afiya Center, along with Jane Doe.

Q: Which court is this opinion from, and what stage of the legal process does it represent?

This opinion is from the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp). It represents an appellate review of a trial court's decision to deny a temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs.

Q: When was the appellate court's decision issued?

The provided summary does not contain the specific date of the appellate court's decision, but it indicates the court affirmed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction.

Q: What specific Texas law is being challenged in this case?

The case challenges Texas's abortion ban, with a particular focus on its 'civil enforcement' provision. This provision allows private citizens to file lawsuits against individuals and entities that perform or aid and abet abortions.

Q: What is the significance of the 'Jane Doe' party in this lawsuit?

The inclusion of 'Jane Doe' as a plaintiff typically signifies an individual who is seeking to challenge the law but wishes to remain anonymous to protect their privacy, often because they are directly affected by the law and fear retaliation or stigma.

Q: Is Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe published?

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment free speech claim because the "civil enforcement" provision of the Texas abortion ban does not directly regulate speech but rather prohibits conduct (performing or aiding abortions), and any incidental impact on speech is not the primary target of the law.; The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs did not show irreparable harm, as the alleged chilling effect on speech was speculative and not sufficiently concrete to warrant immediate injunctive relief.; The court determined that the plaintiffs' argument that the "civil enforcement" provision is overly broad and vague was unlikely to succeed, as the statute provides fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and does not substantially impair protected speech.; The court found that the plaintiffs' claim that the law violates their right to association was also unlikely to prevail, as the statute's prohibition on aiding and abetting abortions does not target the act of association itself but rather the specific conduct of facilitating illegal abortions..

Q: What precedent does Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe set?

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment free speech claim because the "civil enforcement" provision of the Texas abortion ban does not directly regulate speech but rather prohibits conduct (performing or aiding abortions), and any incidental impact on speech is not the primary target of the law. (2) The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs did not show irreparable harm, as the alleged chilling effect on speech was speculative and not sufficiently concrete to warrant immediate injunctive relief. (3) The court determined that the plaintiffs' argument that the "civil enforcement" provision is overly broad and vague was unlikely to succeed, as the statute provides fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and does not substantially impair protected speech. (4) The court found that the plaintiffs' claim that the law violates their right to association was also unlikely to prevail, as the statute's prohibition on aiding and abetting abortions does not target the act of association itself but rather the specific conduct of facilitating illegal abortions.

Q: What are the key holdings in Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe?

1. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment free speech claim because the "civil enforcement" provision of the Texas abortion ban does not directly regulate speech but rather prohibits conduct (performing or aiding abortions), and any incidental impact on speech is not the primary target of the law. 2. The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs did not show irreparable harm, as the alleged chilling effect on speech was speculative and not sufficiently concrete to warrant immediate injunctive relief. 3. The court determined that the plaintiffs' argument that the "civil enforcement" provision is overly broad and vague was unlikely to succeed, as the statute provides fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and does not substantially impair protected speech. 4. The court found that the plaintiffs' claim that the law violates their right to association was also unlikely to prevail, as the statute's prohibition on aiding and abetting abortions does not target the act of association itself but rather the specific conduct of facilitating illegal abortions.

Q: What is the primary legal argument made by the plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs argue that the Texas law's civil enforcement provision violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. They contend that the threat of private lawsuits chills their protected speech and association related to advocating for and facilitating abortion access.

Q: What is the 'civil enforcement' provision of the Texas abortion ban?

The 'civil enforcement' provision allows private citizens, not just the state, to sue individuals or entities that perform abortions or knowingly assist or encourage an abortion. Successful plaintiffs can be awarded statutory damages.

Q: How does the 'civil enforcement' provision allegedly violate the First Amendment?

The plaintiffs claim the provision violates the First Amendment by chilling protected speech and association. They argue that the fear of being sued by private citizens for engaging in activities like advising on abortion or providing financial assistance deters them from exercising their free speech rights.

Q: What is the 'likelihood of success on the merits' standard in this context?

This standard requires the plaintiffs to show that they are likely to win their case on the substance of their legal arguments. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden regarding their First Amendment claims.

Q: What does it mean for a law to 'chill' speech?

When a law 'chills' speech, it means that the law discourages or prevents people from exercising their First Amendment right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions, even if their speech might ultimately be found protected.

Q: Are the plaintiffs seeking to overturn the entire abortion ban, or just the civil enforcement mechanism?

The immediate focus of the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction was on stopping the enforcement of the civil liability provision, which they argue infringes on their First Amendment rights, rather than seeking to overturn the entire abortion ban itself at this procedural stage.

Q: Who is considered an 'abettor' under the Texas law being challenged?

The law allows suits against those who 'aid or abet' an abortion. While the specific definition is contested, it broadly encompasses individuals or groups who provide assistance, encouragement, or resources related to obtaining an abortion.

Q: What legal precedent might the court have considered?

The court likely considered First Amendment jurisprudence regarding free speech, association, and potential chilling effects, as well as precedents on the requirements for granting temporary injunctions and the scope of state regulatory power over medical procedures.

Q: What is the burden of proof for the plaintiffs in their First Amendment claim?

The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the Texas law, as applied, violates their First Amendment rights. This includes demonstrating that their speech or association is protected and that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden on it.

Q: What is the practical impact of the appellate court's decision on abortion access in Texas?

The appellate court's decision means that the civil enforcement mechanism of the Texas abortion ban remains in effect while the lawsuit proceeds. This continues to expose abortion providers and those who assist them to potential lawsuits from private citizens, potentially limiting access to abortion services.

Q: How does this ruling affect organizations that provide support for abortion access?

Organizations that fund or support abortion access, such as the North Texas Equal Access Fund or the Afiya Center, continue to face the risk of civil lawsuits under the challenged law. This can impact their operations, funding, and ability to provide services.

Q: What are the potential financial consequences for individuals or groups sued under this law?

Individuals or groups found liable under the civil enforcement provision can be subject to significant statutory damages, potentially including $10,000 or more for each abortion performed or aided, plus court costs and attorney's fees.

Q: Does this ruling prevent all abortions in Texas?

No, this specific ruling pertains to the denial of a temporary injunction against the civil enforcement provision. Texas law generally prohibits abortions except in very limited medical circumstances, and this ruling allows the civil enforcement aspect of that ban to continue pending further litigation.

Q: Could this case impact other types of advocacy or speech?

Potentially, if the civil enforcement model is upheld, it could serve as a template for other groups seeking to restrict certain types of speech or conduct by empowering private citizens to bring lawsuits, thereby creating a chilling effect on protected activities.

Q: How does this case relate to previous legal challenges to abortion restrictions?

This case is part of a broader legal history of challenges to abortion restrictions, particularly those enacted after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It specifically addresses novel enforcement mechanisms like private civil lawsuits, which differ from traditional state enforcement.

Q: What was the docket number in Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe?

The docket number for Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe is 03-21-00650-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Planned Parenthood Center for Choice; Bhavik Kumar, M.D; North Texas Equal Access Fund; Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Inc.; the Afiya Center; Fund Texas Choice; West Fund; Frontera Fund; Clinic Access Support Network; The Bridge Collective; Monica Faulkner; Michelle Tuegel; Ghazaleh Moayedi, D.O.; And Jane Doe be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What was the trial court's initial ruling that is being reviewed?

The trial court initially denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a court order to stop certain actions while a lawsuit is ongoing.

Q: What did the appellate court decide regarding the temporary injunction?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, meaning it agreed that a temporary injunction should not be granted at this stage. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

Q: What legal standard did the plaintiffs need to meet to get a temporary injunction?

To obtain a temporary injunction, the plaintiffs generally need to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying legal claims, a substantial risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the balance of hardships tips in their favor.

Q: What might happen next in this legal battle?

The case will likely proceed back to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs may also have the option to appeal the appellate court's decision to the Texas Supreme Court.