Profs. Howard M. Wasserman & Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes Guest-Blogging About "Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas' Fetal-Heartbeat Law"

|

I'm delighted to report that Profs. Howard M. Wasserman (FIU) and Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes (South Texas College of Law), both of whom specialize in procedure and in what lawyers label "fed courts" (the rules related to, among other things, federal courts' jurisdiction and power), will be guest-blogging starting today about their new article, "Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas' Fetal-Heartbeat Law." Here is the abstract:

The Texas Fetal-Heartbeat Law enacted in 2021 as Senate Bill 8 prohibits abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the method of enforcement in the Texas law is unique—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by "any person." Texas employed this enforcement mechanism to impose potentially crippling financial liability on abortion providers and advocates and to stymie their ability to challenge the law's constitutional validity through offensive litigation in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law. Texas lawmakers sought to confine abortion providers and advocates to a defensive litigation posture in state court.

This article works through the procedural and jurisdictional obstacles that SB8 creates for abortion providers and abortion-rights advocates seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of the fetal-heartbeat ban. While Texas has created a jurisdictional and procedural morass, the law does not achieve the ultimate objectives. Providers and advocates can litigate in federal court, although it requires creativity as to timing and proper litigation targets. They also should find greater success defending in state court than legislators expected or hoped. Other avenues remain to vindicate the rights of abortion providers and advocates—and the pregnant patients they serve–that accord with the traditional operation of and limitations upon the federal and state judiciaries in adjudicating constitutional rights.

NEXT: Five Tentative Thoughts About The OSHA Employer Vaccine Mandate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s to “solve”?

    It’s a great law that tries to prevent people from killing babies. It IS the solution

    1. Even if one thinks abortion is the worst sin imaginable, this is still a terrible law. If it works, it provides a blueprint to eliminate any constitutional right that a particular legislature disapproves of.

  2. Sure, as long as you don’t mind throwing the First and Fourteenth Amendments away, with the rule of law, the Supremacy clause, and the the system of checks and balances that made America great thrown in.

    That seems like it makes sense so that a concept that enjoys less than 15% support from Americans can temporarily exist.

    Totally worth it. That Constitution thing isn’t that important, right?

    1. “Sure, as long as you don’t mind throwing the First and Fourteenth Amendments away”?

      That would be the Left, going after Freedom of Speech.

      There is no US Constitutional right to an abortion. There never has been. Lies by 5 – 7 members of SCOTUS to the contrary don’t change that reality

    2. A tortured reading of the First and Fourteenth Amendments is not actually compatible with their actual meaning. And, somehow, you APPROVE of using the Supremacy Clause to destroy the system of checks and balances. Try to find arguments that don’t assume your conclusions, for a change.

Please to post comments