CARSON CITY (LN) — The state’s high court, sitting en banc, reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Senate Bill 510’s parental notification and judicial bypass provisions, sending the case back with instructions to grant the injunction.
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Inc. and Dr. Doe sued the State of Nevada in July 2025 after a federal injunction blocking the law was vacated, allowing NRS 442.255, NRS 442.2555, and NRS 442.257 to take effect on July 22, 2025. The nonprofit and the anonymous physician argued the statute was void for vagueness and violated patients’ due process rights.
The Nevada Supreme Court found the parental notification provision vague because it fails to define “personally notified” or “reasonable effort,” leaving physicians uncertain about when they may proceed to certified mail notification. The court noted the statute does not clarify whether a physician must personally deliver notice or whether office staff may do so, or how long a physician must wait after sending certified mail before performing the procedure.
The judicial bypass provisions are equally vague, the court held. Under NRS 442.255, a physician may not perform an abortion without judicial authorization, but the statute provides no guidance on how a physician should verify that authorization has occurred. The court catalogued unanswered questions: whether a physician may rely on a patient’s representations, whether documentation is required, or whether a physician must check court dockets—records that are confidential under the statute.
“Because physicians face possible criminal prosecution and occupational harm pursuant to NRS 442.257, the lack of fair notice and the potential for standardless enforcement elevates our concerns,” Chief Justice Herndon wrote for the seven-justice majority.
The court applied the criminal-vagueness standard, which requires a statute to be clear in most applications, because NRS 442.257 imposes criminal penalties for violations. The district court erred by applying the lower civil-vagueness standard, the Supreme Court said.
The State argued causation and redressability were lacking because county district attorneys—not the Attorney General—initiated the federal litigation that lifted the injunction. The Supreme Court rejected that, citing authority allowing multiple enforcement actors and the Attorney General’s supervisory powers over district attorneys under NRS 228.120.
The court also found appellants demonstrated standing, ripeness, irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships favored an injunction, noting that preserving access to healthcare and the pre-enforcement status quo weighed in appellants’ favor despite the State’s interest in parental rights.
Chief Justice Herndon authored the opinion, joined by Justices Pickering, Parraguirre, Bell, Stiglich, Cadish and Lee.