United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2023

Argued: March 1, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2025

No. 23-686

MARY DOE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

JANE SMITH, JILL PARK, ANN JONES, DR. AMY MOE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KATHY HOCHUL, as Governor of the State of New York in her official capacity, LETITIA JAMES, as Attorney General of the State of New York in her official capacity, STEPHANIE SCHULMAN, Deputy Director, Division of Hospitals and Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, New York State Department of Health in her official capacity, ARTHUR S. HENGERER, M.D., Chair, New York State Department of Health Office of Professional Medical Conduct in his official capacity, HOWARD A. ZUCKER, M.D., J.D., SARAH BENSON, Deputy Commissioner, New York State Education Department’s Office of the Professions in her official capacity, DONNA FRESCATORE, New York Medicaid Director in her official capacity, SHEILA J. POOLE, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) in her official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees. *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York No. 21-cv-35, Lawrence E. Kahn, Judge.

Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, SULLIVAN, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.

Mary Doe, a social worker proceeding by pseudonym, appeals from a judgment dismissing her constitutional challenges to New York’s Reproductive Health Act (“RHA”) for lack of standing; she also appeals the district court’s denial of her post-judgment motions to amend the complaint. Doe raises two challenges on appeal. First, she argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to be appointed “next friend” to a class of viable fetuses in order to bring a constitutional challenge to the RHA on their behalf. According to Doe, the district court committed legal error in requiring her to demonstrate a “significant relationship” to the viable fetuses in the class, which Doe maintains is not a prerequisite to next friend representation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). Second, Doe argues that the district court erred in denying her post- judgment motion to file an amended complaint, which the district court found would be futile for lack of standing. Doe disputes the district court’s ruling on standing, arguing that the proposed amended complaint asserted claims on behalf of a viable fetus, “Baby Nicholas,” who had been cognizably harmed by the RHA. With respect to Doe’s motion to be appointed next friend, we agree with Doe that the district court erred in requiring a “significant relationship” for next friend appointments. Nevertheless, we affirm the dismissal of Doe’s claims on another ground – namely, that she failed to identify or otherwise describe any class member in the viable fetus class that she sought to represent. Without describing * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the case caption.

2 at least one class member and the injury he faces, Doe necessarily cannot meet her burden of plausibly establishing a live case or controversy under Article III. We likewise affirm the district court’s denial of Doe’s motion to ame