Welty v. Dunaway

At a Glance:

In an amicus* brief filed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026, Compassion Legal, along with our pro bono partners at Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison, urged the Court of Appeals to affirm a District Court’s decision that speech about healthcare options available in other states is constitutionally protected, even if that healthcare option is not legal in a person’s state of residence.

This matters to Compassion & Choices because a decision reversing the District Court could have a direct impact on our mission: if states are allowed to criminalize speech about reproductive healthcare options available in other states, they could just as easily criminalize speech about end-of-life healthcare options, such as medical aid in dying, available in other states.

On September 24, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court’s injunction barring enforcement of the recruitment provision, thus agreeing with our amicus brief that speech about healthcare options is constitutionally protected.

The Details:

In 2024, Tennessee enacted a law to prohibit “abortion trafficking of a minor.” The law makes it a crime to “intentionally recruit a pregnant unemancipated minor” in Tennessee “for the purpose of” obtaining an abortion that would be illegal in Tennessee, even if that abortion takes place outside of the state. That means the state is attempting to criminalize whether a person can get information, resources or simply discuss legal out-of-state healthcare options.

Plaintiffs Rachel Welty and Aftyn Behn, who work in abortion advocacy in Tennessee, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this law.

Why Compassion Legal is involved: Welty will have an impact on the ability of any person in Tennessee to discuss legal out-of-state healthcare options concerning abortion. Because this is a case in federal court, the decision could have ramifications outside of Tennessee by setting a legal precedent that states can regulate speech about legal healthcare in other states.

Compassion Legal filed an amicus brief in order to urge the Court of Appeals to consider the wider impact a ruling in favor of the defendants could have, and to advocate for continued Free Speech protections for people sharing information about legal healthcare in other states.

In our brief, we argued that the outcome of this case matters to Compassion & Choices because a decision reversing the District Court could have a direct impact on our mission to ensure that people have access to all legal end-of-life options. If states are allowed to criminalize speech about reproductive healthcare options available in other states, they could just as easily criminalize speech about end-of-life healthcare options available in other states. This would mean that an individual could face liability for speaking to a loved one about end-of-life options, such as medical aid in dying, available in other states.

Compassion & Choices is committed to ensuring patients have access to quality care and the full range of options at the end-of-life. To learn more about our legal advocacy work, please visit our Compassion Legal webpage.

*Amicus curiae is Latin for “friend of the court.” Amicus briefs are commonly submitted by anyone wanting to make a point relating to a court case that the litigating parties are not addressing.