Opponents of the Texas Abortion Ban Still Have Ways To Challenge It
Although a Texas Supreme Court ruling ended the main challenge to the law, other cases could ultimately block its enforcement.
Although a Texas Supreme Court ruling ended the main challenge to the law, other cases could ultimately block its enforcement.
But the bill is still a mess.
Opponents of this dangerous law have a variety of options left to pursue in state and federal courts, despite their recent defeat in the Texas Supreme Court.
The experience in Texas shows that workarounds pose daunting obstacles to such laws.
Plus: free speech history, against regulating social media like phone companies, and more...
The article explains why SB 8 potentially poses a threat to constitutional rights far beyond the abortion context, and how future court decisions could potentially mitigate it.
If it is upheld, state legislators easily could use the strategy embodied in S.B. 8 to attack other rights the Supreme Court has recognized.
Politicians and cops found creative ways to dodge responsibility in 2021.
Recent articles in the Texas Monthy and the New York Times provide some useful insight on why Texas has been gaining migrants at such a high rate.
Federal regulators have permanently lifted a requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person.
Gavin Newsom is exploring legislation to authorize private civil actions against people who sell "assault weapons" or gun kits.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling largely precluding pre-enforcement challenge of the Texas abortion law, Governor Newsom calls for similar action on guns.
Things are far from completely clear. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion may give preenforcement challenges to SB 8 and other similar laws a good deal more wiggle room than many think.
The Court allowed claims against health care regulators to proceed, but that will not prevent the private civil actions authorized by the law.
District Court Judge David Peeples focused on the law's "unique and unprecedented" enforcement mechanism rather than abortion rights.
The Court rules that the lawsuit against SB 8 can proceed by targeting state licensing officials. But the implications for future cases are far from completely clear.
There's no general federal right to them; they are often available when a law is enforced by government officials, but generally not as to laws in which private citizens sue (whether over abortion, speech, religious exercise, gun ownership or sales, or anything else).
The private litigation against some defendants may proceed, but the federal lawsuit is gone.
The ruling is mostly based on the Texas state constitution and probably will not affect the federal case challenging SB 8, currently before the Supreme Court. But it makes some notable points, nonetheless.
Flagging some interesting blog posts on the question.
Plus: A reminder to Bill de Blasio of what "incentive" really means
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
“All of those…just come out of Lochner.”
Plus: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in landmark abortion case, supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages are holding back economic growth, and more...
The justices may find it difficult to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban without overturning Roe v. Wade.
The oft-heard argument that something isn't "written in the Constitution" is not as compelling as it might seem. Sometimes, it's outright false.
The "viability" rule is arbitrary. So are the alternatives.
The argument made by Finnis, George, Hammer and others, that abortion is unconstitutional is not supported by text or history.
A delayed, but hopefully still helpful final rejoinder to Stephen Sachs.
Would the outcome in Dobbs put originalism in doubt?
The slippery slope risks created by upholding SB 8 threaten a vital constitutional principle - one far more important than any considerations on the other side. That is sufficient reason to rule against Texas in this case.
Even justices who take a dim view of Roe v. Wade recognize the law’s chilling implications.
If Texas' SB 8 subterfuge works, it would be a dangerous road map for attacking other constitutional rights. The slippery slope risks on the other side are minor by comparison.
Today's Supreme Court oral argument suggests they will get the votes of six or more justices. If so, it will be a crucial victory for judicial protection of all constitutional rights, not just abortion rights.
The justice grilled a Texas official over the implications of his state’s abortion law.
The Firearms Policy Coalition amicus brief offers a simple and effective way to neuter the threat to judicial review posed by SB 8.
However the Supreme Court handles the S.B. 8 litigation, it may unleash mischief in other policy areas.
An amicus brief in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson warns of how S.B. 8's structure could be used to target other constitutional rights.
The actual number of abortions that S.B. 8 prevented by the end of September may be closer to 500 than 3,000.
The justices will hear United States v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson on November 1.
The Court will hear oral argument in the two cases on November 1.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10