Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana

1 Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of A
LITO, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MONTANA, ET AL. v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
MONTANA,
ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA
No. 24–745. Decided July 3, 2025
The petition fo
r a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J
UST
ICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS joins, respecting the denial of certiorari.
Montana’s Parental Co
nsent for Abortion Act generally
requires physicians to obtain consent from parents before
performing an abortion on a minor. See Mont. Code Ann.
§§50–20–501 to 50–20–511 (2023). Planned Parenthood of
Mo
ntana filed a lawsuit in Montana state court, seeking to
enjoin enforcement of the law. It asserted that the law was
inconsistent with Montana’s State constitution. In the pro-
ceedings below, the State of Montana argued that the law
satisfied state constitutional standards because, among
other things, it promoted the
right of parents to make deci-
sions concerning the care, custody, and control of their chil-
dren. See Appellants’ Opening Brief in No. DA 23–0272,
pp. 36–37. The State cited a decision of this Court on the
rights of parents as support fo
r its argument based on state
law, but it did not expressly argue that a holding against it
on the state constitutional question would infringe the fed-
eral constitutional rights of parents. Ibid. Similarly, the
Supreme Court of Montana, while citing our de
cision in
Tro
xel v. Granville, 530 U. S. 57 (2000), did not expressly
hold that the rights of minors under Montana law took prec-
edence o
ver the federal constitutional rights of parents. See
417 Mont. 457, 485–486, 554 P.3d 153, 171 (2024).
Afte
r the State Supreme Court struck down the parental
consent requirement, the State filed a petition for certiorari

2 MONTANA v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA
Statement of A
LITO, J.
in which it asked us to decide “[w]hether a parent’s funda-
mental right to direct the care and custody of his or her chil-
dren includes a right to know and participate in decisions
concerning their minor child’s medical care, including a mi-
nor’s decision to seek an abortion.” Pet. for Cert. i. But
because of the way this case was litigated below, it provides
a poor vehicle for deciding that question. It is therefore es-
pecially important that the denial of review is not read by
interested parties or other courts as a rejection of the argu-
ment that the petition asks us to decide.