Doe v. Hochul, 139 F.4th 165

In 2019, New York enacted the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), decriminalizing all abortions and eliminating the criminal offense of fetal homicide.
Plaintiffs, including Mary Doe (a social worker using a pseudonym), challenged the RHA, alleging violations of fetuses' constitutional rights.
Doe sought to be appointed as "next friend" to a class of viable fetuses to challenge the RHA, but did not identify any specific fetus in her initial complaint.
The district court denied Doe's next friend motion for lack of a "significant relationship" and dismissed for lack of standing.
After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (ending federal constitutional protection for abortion), Doe sought to amend her complaint and added "Baby Nicholas" as a representative fetus, alleging harm from third-party violence traceable to the RHA.
The district court denied the post-judgment motions, finding no standing because Baby Nicholas's harm was not imminent or traceable to the RHA; Doe appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must a "next friend" have a significant relationship with the party represented under Rule 17(c)?	No; Doe argued Rule 17(c) does not require such a relationship.	Yes; the state argued a significant relationship is required.	No significant relationship required, but still must identify a real party in interest.
Does Doe have next friend standing to sue for viable fetuses without identification of any class members?	General representation is sufficient given her professional experience.	Failure to identify or describe a specific member defeats standing.	Doe lacks standing; must identify or describe at least one real party in interest.
Did the amended (post-Dobbs) complaint establish standing for "Baby Nicholas"?	Yes; alleged harm from domestic violence is fairly traceable to RHA changes.	No; the alleged harm is not imminent or traceable to the RHA's passage.	No standing; harm not imminent or traceable to the RHA, mostly third-party conduct.
Did Dobbs v. Jackson affect the outcome on standing?	Yes; claimed Dobbs constituted an intervening change in law justifying relief.	No; Dobbs did not alter standing defects in Doe's complaint.	Dobbs did not affect standing analysis or provide a basis for relief.

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (establishing requirements for next friend standing)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (representative standing requires identification of harmed members)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury that is actual or imminent, traceable, and redressable)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (allegations of possible future injury are insufficient for Article III standing)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (limitations on third-party standing)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (standing must be demonstrated for each form of relief sought)