The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a reproductive rights case that has spanned more than three decades in Guam. The court's order, filed Feb. 3, 2026, upheld its earlier decision to dismiss the appeal as moot.
The case, *Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Moylan*, traces its origins to 1990 when medical professionals and advocacy groups first challenged Guam government policies affecting reproductive healthcare access. The plaintiffs include the Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Guam Nurses Association, and several individual doctors including Edmund A. Griley, William S. Freeman, and John Dunlop.
Guam Attorney General Douglas Moylan appealed an earlier federal court ruling, but the Ninth Circuit panel found the appeal had become moot in light of developments in a related case, *In Re Leon Guerrero*. The court provided no additional details about the specific legal issues that rendered the appeal moot, but the timing suggests recent changes in Guam's legal or policy landscape affected the underlying dispute.
The defendants in the case represent a broad cross-section of Guam's government structure. Governor Lourdes Leon Guerrero heads the list of defendants-appellees, along with Arthur U. San Agustin, Director of the Department of Public Health and Social Services, and Lillian Perez-Posadas, Administrator of Guam Memorial Hospital. The case also names the entire Guam Election Commission, including members Alice M. Taijeron, Gerard C. Crisostomo, G. Patrick Civille, Joseph P. Mafnas, Antonia R. Gumataotao, Carissa E. Pangelinan, and Benny A. Pinaula.
The involvement of election commissioners alongside health officials suggests the case may have involved ballot initiatives or electoral processes related to reproductive rights, a common feature in territorial jurisdictions where federal constitutional protections intersect with local governance structures.
The three-judge panel that heard the case consisted of Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali H. Desai. The court's order also indicates that Judge VanDyke issued a separate statement, though the content of that statement was not included in the available court documents.
Guam, as a U.S. territory, operates under a unique legal framework where federal constitutional protections apply but local governance structures maintain significant autonomy over healthcare and social policies. This has created ongoing tensions in areas like reproductive rights, where territorial governments may seek to implement policies that conflict with federal constitutional standards.
The case's 36-year duration from initial filing to the current appellate proceedings reflects the complex and evolving nature of reproductive rights litigation in U.S. territories. The original 1990 filing date places the case's origins during a period of significant change in federal reproductive rights jurisprudence, and it has continued through multiple shifts in both federal and territorial policies.
Medical professional organizations have frequently served as plaintiffs in reproductive rights cases, arguing that government restrictions interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and violate professional medical standards. The inclusion of both obstetricians and nurses associations as plaintiffs suggests the case involved policies affecting multiple levels of healthcare delivery.
The presence of a reverend, Milton H. Cole Jr., among the plaintiffs indicates the case may have involved religious freedom considerations alongside reproductive rights issues, reflecting the complex interplay of constitutional protections that often characterizes territorial litigation.
The mootness dismissal means the Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the underlying legal questions, leaving unresolved whatever constitutional or statutory issues the parties had hoped to clarify through appellate review. This outcome is common when changing circumstances eliminate the practical controversy that gave rise to the litigation.
The denial of rehearing petitions signals the end of this particular appellate proceeding, though the underlying legal and policy issues that gave rise to the decades-long litigation may continue to evolve through other legal channels or policy developments in Guam's territorial government.
For Guam's medical community and reproductive rights advocates, the mootness dismissal leaves the legal landscape unchanged from whatever resolution was achieved at the district court level. The case serves as an example of how territorial jurisdictions navigate the intersection of federal constitutional protections and local governance autonomy in sensitive areas of social policy.