Whether a State's obligation under federally funded programs to obtain legally effective informed consent for unapproved medical treatments creates an individually enforceable liberty interest under the Due Process Clause

This case presents similar questions as No. 2440436, Jeri Pearson, et al., Petitioners v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, Incorporated, et al ., and arises from the same court of appeals, which is being circulated for conference on October 17, 2025. In the case at bar, both the district court and the Fifth Circuit relied on facts presented in Pearson to resolve disputed facts and issues of law under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court may wish to consider the two petitions together. Since the passage of the 1974 National Research Act, federal policy has ensured that no individual faces penalties or loss of benefits for refusing unapproved medical treatments. QUESTIONS : 1. Whether a State’s obligation under federally funded programs to obtain legally effective informed consent for unapproved medical treatments creates an individually enforceable liberty interest under the Due Process Clause to give or withhold such consent, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon violation? 2. Whether a State can evade its federal obligation to obtain legally effective informed consent for unapproved medical treatments through private delegation, and whether the private party’s deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights in performing that function constitutes state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? – ii –