Texas appeals court lets Planned Parenthood affiliates continue lawsuit over Heartbeat Act

January 30, 2026

On Jan. 16, the Texas Third District Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that three Planned Parenthood affiliates and other pro-choice groups can move forward with their lawsuit against Texas Right to Life. Planned Parenthood first sued the pro-life lobbying group in 2021, challenging the Texas Heartbeat Act soon after the law took effect.

Plaintiffs argue the Heartbeat Act did not criminalize abortion through state enforcement, but instead allowed private citizens to bring civil suits against people who obtain an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Those challengers say that structure was designed to place enforcement in private hands so the law could avoid ordinary judicial scrutiny by public officials.

A Travis County judge sided with Planned Parenthood in 2021 and issued a restraining order barring Texas Right to Life from suing the affiliates under the Heartbeat Act. The appellate panel reviewed that ruling after Texas Right to Life appealed the county court order.

John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, criticized the appellate decision and said his organization plans to take the case to a higher court. Seago wrote that Planned Parenthood and its partners lacked standing to file a preemptive suit because they feared the defendants might make legitimate use of the new law.

Planned Parenthood Texas Votes executive director Shellie Hayes-McMahon said the law was aimed at testing how far anti-abortion policymakers could go while relying on private lawsuits. She said the statute created a legal route to ban abortion before the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, and she warned that Texans have been living with the consequences since that decision.

The appeals court ruling keeps the constitutional challenge alive, and the next steps could determine whether private enforcement provisions like those in the Heartbeat Act can insulate laws from court review. With Texas already restricting abortions after the Supreme Court ruling, this litigation may shape how future challenges to reproductive health laws proceed in state courts.