The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My Law 360 Article on the Texas SB 8 Case and Prospects for the Future
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.
The Law 360 website recently published my article on the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas SB 8 abortion case. The link in the previous sentence is paywalled. But Law 360 has generously allowed me to post a PDF version, which is available here for free.
Here is an excerpt:
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an extremely important, but frustratingly murky, decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, the case addressing S.B. 8, Texas' controversial new anti-abortion law. The key issue at stake in this case is whether Texas can evade judicial review by limiting enforcement authority exclusively to private parties.
S.B. 8 seemingly bars enforcement by state officials, and instead delegates it to private litigants, who each stand to gain $10,000 or more in damages every time they prevail in a lawsuit against anyone who violates the law's provisions barring abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy.
If Texas' ploy succeeds, it would set a dangerous precedent for insulating attacks on other constitutional rights from judicial review. For this reason, the struggle over S.B. 8 has implications that go far beyond abortion rights. It should trouble even those who believe that the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and later decisions protecting abortion should be overruled or severely limited, as might happen in Dobbs v. Jackson Woman's Health Organization, a case currently before the justices.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision is vague on the question of whether the S.B. 8 strategy will be successful or not. Only further litigation is likely to clarify the picture. In the meantime, other states have already begun trying to imitate the S.B. 8 strategy.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is SB8 more threatening to rights than qualified immunity (or other immunities)?
It seems to me that the only difference is that SB8 is a creation of a state whereas QI is a creation of SCOTUS.
I'm not sure what your comparison is all about.
Qualified immunity comes as part of a job. Rightly or wrongly. Theoretically at least QI comes with accountability through the authority that granted it. The system isn't perfect but that is what the "qualified" means.
The powers SB8 invests in anyone with the power to collect a bounty against anyone as long as they can talk a like-minded jury into believing that they had something to do with an abortion. Like the Uber driver that drove the patient to the clinic.
You are ignoring the biggest difference however: QI is subject to judicial review and SB8 is not.
How is QI subject to judicial review? Are there QI laws in every place it exists? As far as I've read, it seems to be a judge-invented doctrine, applied anew and ad hoc to each case, rather than an actual law that can be reviewed.
If Texas' ploy succeeds, it would set a dangerous precedent for insulating attacks on other constitutional rights from judicial review.
Not while this Court sits. No doubt the majority already have their reasoning ready. The right challenge for VC Court watchers is to guess what results-oriented contortions the Court will inflict to distinguish SB8 from an otherwise identically-framed attack on the 2A.
" The right challenge for VC Court watchers is to guess what results-oriented contortions the Court will inflict to distinguish SB8 from an otherwise identically-framed attack on the 2A. "
Maybe the movement conservatives (or 'libertarianish often libertarians,' as Prof. Volokh prefers to describe them) will just start expressly relying on a concordance rather than on the Federal Reporter? A couple of them seem itching to be out with it.
For goodness' sake, the Court could simply have waited on the SB8 case until it gave a decision in the Mississippi case. If they decide that abortion is *not* a constitutional right, then they can uphold SB8 because it does not chill a constitutional right, thereby reserving judgment on what would happen if such a law was passed restricting a *real* constitutional right.
I agree it is curious they agreed to hear the SB8 case if they were planning to throw out Casey. Perhaps a ruling upholding a post-15 week ban, but not a post-6 week ban is in the works?
"It should trouble even those who believe that the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and later decisions protecting abortion should be overruled or severely limited"
State "sovereign immunity" troubles me - I have to accept the 11th Amendment as to suits against states by foreign nationals and people from other states, but outside the 11th Amendment context, I don't have to accept a state's immunity from cases brought by its own citizens.
The supporters of Roe have no standing to demand compliance with the plain meaning of the Constitution, but the plain meaning of the constitution is that a citizen can sue his own state in the Supreme Court. An abortionist has to right to sue to complain about abortion laws - and the right to lose on the merits.
Re: An abortionist has to right to sue to complain about abortion laws ...
Here is one way this is playing out:
An Texas abortionist has sued a volunteer citizen (Felipe N. Gomez) who brought a friendly-as-much-as-faux SB8 suit against "the good doc" to help him obtain a declaratory judgment from a Texas state court declaring SB8 unconstitutional. The "good doc" didn't want to litigate in his own home town before a home-town judge, however, so he returned the favor by countersuing Gomez in Chicago. Statutory interpleader, voilà. Deus ex machinà. Gomez is having regrets now, having ended up being skewered and roasted as a straw defendant. It's all about the stake now. Never mind that Gomez had disclaimed the bounty.
Come 2022, the federal interpleader already features 50+ docket items in addition to 12 Big Law Big City attorneys, and the theater of the absurd keeps on going. The forum-selected federal judge 1000+ miles North from San Antone just can't bring himself to acknowledge that a pro-choice plaintiff suing a professionally pro-choice abortionst -- both designated so on the first page of the complaint -- and vice-versa doesn't make for legitimate case or controversy to challenge a state abortion regulation.
But you can no doubt find some eminent professors of legal wizardry that will assure the incredulous that sham litigation is the way to go. Best, of course, when the same team controls both sides of the docket and you don't show your cards on the way to the theater of the spectacle.
Gomez is paying the price for having shown his hand at the outset.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60626475/braid-v-stilley/
Probably the worst possible outcome would be if they struck down SB8 on "abortion is special" grounds, rather than "you can't protect a law from review that way" grounds.
Maybe it will be a newly discovered dignitary right. Equal dignity for all Americans requires a ban on abortions, which affront dignity, and encouragement of pistols for everyone, which enhance dignity. It is not at all hard to imagine today's right wing majority on a crusade for maximum dignity for all Americans.
"It is not at all hard to imagine" -
It's not hard to imagine the Justices all dancing around in their underwear to the tune of C+C Music Factory's "Gonna Make You Sweat." In fact, I dare you *not* to imagine it, now that I've mentioned it.
I'm imagining them dancing to Bob Seger.
NO PRE-ENFORCEMENT REVIEW, HUH?
Leaving aside the matter of hyper-preferential seriatim hot-potato treatment by the SCOTUS itself, fifteen (15) pre-enforcement cases were filed in Texas state courts (1 is a duplicate), some even before the September 1, 2021 effectiveness date.
The roster of plaintiffs is as follows:
Clinic Access Support Network
Doe, Jane
Faulkner, Monica
Frontera Fund
Fund Texas Choice
Kumar, Bhavik
Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity
Moayedi, Ghazaleh
North Texas Equal Access Fund
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health
Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center
The Afiya Center
The Bridge Collective
The West Fund
Tuegel, Michelle
Van Stean, Allison
The right to access the courts and make a constitutional challenge was obviously not denied to any of these plaintiffs (abortion providers, abortion funders, and abortion advocates/friends), but no private litigant is automatically entitled to win.
Part of the currently-consolidated cases (following state MDL panel involvement and a SCOTX mandamus bid) is currently on interlocutory appeal in the Seventh COA in Amarillo under the reversed case style for the first-filed case: Texas Right to Life v. Allison Van Stean.
Docket here: https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=07-22-00013-CV&coa=coa07
Prof. Somin acknowledges that they pro-abortion side won in the first round, but bemoans that the decision will be reviewed by higher courts.
Gee … isn’t that how it’s usually done in important litigation? The trial court ruling isn’t final because – well – the trial court just isn't the court of last resort and last word. And here there was no trial, ergo no final judgment, but interlocutory appeals are already under way anyhow.
So the facts here are that the pro-abortion plaintiffs first got their courtesy walk-into-the-courthouse TROs (at least one ex parte), later an agreed temporary injunction pending trial on the merits or prior disposition before trial, and then several favorable rulings on pretrial motions including partial summary judgment.
But somehow eminent law professors and the media keep harping that SB8 has been craftily insulated from judicial review, and pretend that stateside judicial review is not happening.
In the end, it may not turn out the way the pro-abortion side wants once these cases get into the Texas Supreme Court, but to pretend that it’s not happening in commentaries on SB8 litigation engenders an impression of a deficit in intellectual honesty.
According to the docket the appeal in the Texas state case was moved from Austin to Amarillo. Why? The lawyers are in Austin, Houston, and Dallas.
Pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court on December 22, 2021.
Posted here: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1453388/219153.pdf
The COA location doesn't really matter and the transferee court is required to apply the binding precedents from the sending COA in case of a conflict. If oral argument is requested and granted, it will be either be done via Zoom (thanks to the pandemic-induced changes) or the justices/panel travels and hears in-person argument in the city from which the case(s) originated. Appellate lawyers may also be given the option whether to do remote-video link (at least that was so with Houston COAs prior to the pandemic when they got cases transferred from Austin/3rd COA due to docket congestion there). The Third COA in Austin gets a lot of administrative and governmental entity appeals due to special venue statutes fixing venue in Travis County/Austin (seat of Texas state government).
I thought maybe somebody was shifting a political case from a liberal part of Texas to a conservative part. There's probably little precedent on point. If the state's highest court gets the case eventually it doesn't matter much.
CASE TRANSFER WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES ?
It might look that way, but it would be hard to prove because these transfer orders are routine. Additionally, the Third Court of Appeals could have exercised its discretion to retain the case for certain permissible reasons, but did not.
Meanwhile, a motion has been filed to move the case back to the Austin Court of Appeals based on a special rule of judicial administration that governs MDL cases.
The Third Court sent a letter the Chief Justice Hecht expressing non-opposition on January 11, 2022. See here: https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-21-00650-CV&coa=coa03
The docket also has copy of “Appellees’ Joint Motion to Return MDL Case to Original Court of Appeals After Inadvertent and Improper Transfer for Docket Equalization”, which they filed in both COAs. The appellants oppose the re-transfer.
Interestingly, the COA dockets both classify the case as "INJUNCTION". This appeal, however, is not a temporary injunction appeal, but an interlocutory appeal by the Pro-Life Defendants of the denial of their motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Texas version of anti-SLAPP). https://texaslawhelp.org/article/anti-slapp-suits-frequently-asked-questions
Judge Peeples didn't grant injunctive relief in connection with the partial summary judgment finding SB8 unconstitutional in part. If he had done so, a direct appeal could presumably have been taken to the Texas Supreme Court, rather than a regular appeal to the (Third) Court of Appeals. A ruling on the injunction aspect of the consolidated cases was specifically reserved for trial due to the presence of fact issue precluding summary disposition. For that reason, the lengthy opinion-order by Judge Peeples does not constitute or entail a final appealable judgment. But a temporary injunction is nevertheless in place based on an agreement of the parties.
The partial summary declaratory judgment (as to the private enforcement mechanism in SB8) would have to be severed out to make it appealable or taken to the court of appeals on motions for permissive interlocutory appeal.
"To perfect a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, the appellant, when in the trial court, must establish "(1) the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion[,] and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d)."
ISSUE(S) OF "FIRST IMPRESSION"
The problem here is not a conflict in the Texas caselaw, however, but the absence of anything that's directly on point, i.e. no controlling authority (except arguably as to specific sub-components of what the plaintiffs are complaining about, such as fee shifting).