In the case of Azar v. Garza, a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant sought an abortion while in federal custody. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) refused to facilitate her access to the procedure, arguing that it was not obligated to do so under its policy of refusing to "facilitate" abortions for unaccompanied minors except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the girl and won at both district court and appellate levels; however, before HHS could appeal again, she obtained an abortion. The Supreme Court vacated these lower court decisions as moot because they were unable to provide any effective relief due to the fact that she had already undergone the procedure by then. However, this decision did not address whether or not HHS's refusal violated constitutional rights nor set precedent for similar future situations.

In the dissenting opinion for Azar v. Garza, Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's decision to allow an undocumented immigrant minor in U.S. government custody to obtain an abortion. He argued that the court was creating a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S custody to obtain immediate access to abortion on demand, thereby disregarding governmental interests and policies favoring fetal life and childbirth over abortion, as well as respecting parental rights of parents who are often not present in this country. Kavanaugh believed that delaying her procedure while seeking a sponsor did not impose undue burden under Supreme Court precedents because it didn't constitute a substantial obstacle on her path to getting an abortion since she would still be able get one later if no suitable sponsor could be found within short period of time.