No. 25-204

Jeri Pearson, et al. v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, Incorporated, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-08-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response Waived
Tags: due-process fourteenth-amendment informed-consent medical-treatment research-ethics state-action
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-10-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the right to refuse an unapproved medical treatment constitutes a fundamental due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment and whether a private party's deprivation of informed consent can be considered state action

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Since Congress enacted the 1974 National Research Act, it has been the federal government’s policy that no individual can be subjected to a penalty or lose a benefit to which they are otherwise entitled when refusing federally funded, unapproved medical treatments or related research activities. To ensure the congressional mandate was faithfully executed, the Executive Branch established the Federalwide Assurance program in 2001, requiring contracting parties to provide written assurance that they will not place a human under coercion, undue influence, or unjustifiable pressures to participate in such treatments or related activities. Consent to an unapproved medical treatment ( i.e., investigational new drugs) in the absence of such coercion, influence, or pressure is known as legally effective informed consent. QUESTIONS : 1. Is the right to refuse an unapproved medical treatment a fundamental right subject to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 2. If a federal program requires a State to obtain legally effective informed consent and the State delegates that duty to a private party, does the private party’s deprivation of that consent constitute State action? – ii –

Docket Entries

2025-10-20
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
2025-09-19
Amicus brief of America's Frontline Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D. submitted.
2025-09-19
Brief amici curiae of America's Frontline Doctors, et al. filed.
2025-09-09
Waiver of right of respondents Shriners Hospitals for Children, Inc.; Shriners Hospitals for Children, Texas; Beverly Bokovitz; Frances Farle; Jerry Gantt; John McCabe; Phillip Grady to respond filed.
2025-08-21
Waiver of right of respondent Cecile Erwin Young to respond filed.
2025-08-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 19, 2025)
2025-07-31
Application (25A128) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until August 14, 2025.
2025-07-23
Application (25A128) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 28, 2025 to September 16, 2025, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

America's Frontline Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.
David Anthony DaliaDavid A. Dalia, Amicus
David Anthony DaliaDavid A. Dalia, Amicus
Cecile Erwin Young
William H. FarrellOffice of the Attorney General of Texas, Respondent
William H. FarrellOffice of the Attorney General of Texas, Respondent
Jeri Pearson, et al.
David J. SchexnaydreSchexnaydre Law Firm, Petitioner
David J. SchexnaydreSchexnaydre Law Firm, Petitioner
Shriners Hospitals for Children, Inc.; Shriners Hospitals for Children, Texas; Beverly Bokovitz; Frances Farle; Jerry Gantt; John McCabe; Phillip Grady
Daniel PattonScott Patton PC, Respondent
Daniel PattonScott Patton PC, Respondent