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.
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?
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks