Originalism and the Result in Dobbs
Would the outcome in Dobbs put originalism in doubt?
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.
The Texas law “could just as easily be used by other States to restrict First or Second Amendment rights,” the Firearms Policy Coalition tells SCOTUS.
The gun rights group has filed a brief supporting the petition for certiorari in one of the cases challenging the controversial Texas abortion law.
Despite his criticisms of Roe, he also believed in stare decisis
The verdict was chiefly based on the actions of protesters and arsonists; the Georgia Court of Appeals rejected it, and the Georgia Supreme Court has just refused to rehear the case.
Whatever this system is, it is not pro-life.
The experience with the Texas Heartbeat Act offers a preview of what that means.
Governments should not design laws and regulations to frustrate judicial review.
S.B. 8 allows lawsuits against people who perform prohibited abortions even if they relied on a court's determination that the law is unconstitutional.
In a prior case challenging the law, the 5th Circuit said state judges were not appropriate defendants.
Plus: Twitter's new trigger warnings, good news for food freedom, and more...
The justices robe up for another term.
Plus: Government shutdown, demographic diversity in rural America, and more...
In the first two lawsuits filed under S.B. 8, all of the parties seem to think enforcement of the law should be blocked.
It's the one amicus brief supporting Mississippi's abortion restriction that takes a wrecking ball to the Supreme Court's fundamental-rights precedents
For the most part, supporters of Mississippi's abortion ban in the Supreme Court are steering clear of Obergefell
Plus: The link between college and moral absolutism, environmental activists vs. Facebook, and more...
Alan Braid says he broke the law, which prohibits the vast majority of abortions, to make sure it would be tested in court.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the authority of the United States...to seek equitable relief to vindicate various federal interests and constitutional guarantees.”
Meanwhile, the threat posed by the lawsuits that S.B. 8 authorizes has dramatically curtailed access to abortion in Texas.
Respectfully disagreeing with Josh about United States v. Texas.
Pro-lifers and pro-choicers have one thing in common: a passion for snitching
S.B. 8 relies on litigation tricks that conservatives have long condemned as a threat to the rule of law.
Plus, why is no one talking about the Medicare Trustees' entitlement report?
While libertarians will be inclined to applaud some of the new laws, others exemplify familiar conservative excesses.
By and large, those schemes (like Texas’s SB 8 liability for abortion providers) must be fought by raising the Constitution as a defense in a civil lawsuit—not through preenforcement challenges.
The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.
Plus: More bad news for free speech online, Fauci on booster shots, and more...
The decision is wrong, but consistent with previous precedent. Yet it also threatens to create a road map for circumventing constitutional rights. Fortunately, the latter can be prevented.
Plus: Millennial myth busting, McFlurry madness, and more...
Because the Supreme Court so far has not intervened, post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.
Plus: Kids got more obese during the pandemic, how Section 230 protects gun rights, and more...