Purl, M.D. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, represented by Public Rights Project, Democracy Forward, and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, filed a motion to intervene as defendants in Purl, M.D. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Northern District of Texas.

The case challenged federal protections established in 2024 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regarding the protection of private medical information. The 2024 rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from sharing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement authorities for investigations or punishment. 

States’ abortion legality and restrictions now vary widely, following the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. As a result, healthcare providers and insurers have faced increased uncertainty about when they are allowed to refuse a request from law enforcement.

The cities and Doctors for America contend that eliminating these patient protections would allow law enforcement and state governments to use private health information for politically-motivated investigations and threaten the well-being of individuals across the country.

On April 15, 2025, the court denied the cities’ motion to intervene.

On May 5, 2025, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wis. along with co-counsel Democracy Forward and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, defending the 2024 HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Read the amicus brief.

On June 13, 2025, PRP notified the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals about a plan to challenge the decision that blocked the cities of Columbus, Ohio and Madison, Wis., and the association Doctors for America, from joining the lawsuit.

Update:

On June 18, 2025, the district court struck down the rule, stating that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overstepped by expanding HIPAA to shield abortion patients’ records. This decision strips away enhanced federal privacy protections for reproductive health information.