US Supreme Court late Wednesday night Refused to ban Texas law banning abortion After six weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5 to 4, with three justices appointed by Trump joining two other conservative justices. Opponents were Chief Justice John Roberts and three Liberal Justices on the Court.
The decision left the door open for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, leaving open the possibility that the case could be sent back to the Supreme Court, albeit not for months or more.
The view was unsigned. She said abortion providers did not properly address “new and complex previous procedural questions” in their case.
“In arriving at this conclusion, we affirm that we do not claim to definitively resolve any litigation or substantive action in the applicants’ claim,” the decision read. “In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas law, and in no way limits other appropriate procedural challenges to Texas law, including in Texas courts.”
The ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy is long before most women know they are pregnant and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, which prohibits states from banning abortions before the fetus is still alive — usually between 22 and 24 weeks. However, a Texas bill was organized to isolate the law from express testing in court.
Since the established procedure for challenging state law is to prosecute enforcement officials, the Texas legislature wrote the law instead to assign citizens the responsibility for enforcement. Specifically, the law allows anyone, without evidence of any personal interest, to sue clinics and individuals alike for “aiding and abetting” abortions that take place after six weeks.
This would potentially put into question not only clinics, but individuals who work in clinics, who transport patients to clinics or help fund abortions.
The court action came shortly before midnight on Wednesday, Almost a day after the law entered into force. Reproductive rights advocates late last week filed an emergency appeal to the court after a panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Hearing canceled Determined by a federal trial judge on whether to block the law.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, said he would have temporarily prevented the law from entering into force in order to give lower courts sufficient time to hear and decide “whether a state could avoid responsibility for its laws” by “essentially delegating”[ing] An application … for the general public.”
He admitted that the case raises difficult and new questions, but that none of these questions have been thoroughly considered by the lower courts. Roberts said the lower court judges were not fully briefed on or considered the cases.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined Roberts’ opinion. They wrote separately, as did Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Briar quoting famous 1803 Marbury v. Madison, said that when a legal right is invaded, the law itself “provides a legal remedy by suit,” and suggested that this law does the opposite.
Judge Kagan said in her written dissent that “Texas law empowers individuals to deny a woman access to an abortion during the first trimester. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to have an abortion during that first phase,” a right that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld over the course of Almost half a century.
Judge Sotomayor used more daring language than the other three dissidents.
“The court order is amazing,” she wrote. “Fulfilled with a request for a blatantly unconstitutional law designed to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights and evading judicial scrutiny, the majority of justices have chosen to bury their heads in the sand…because the Court’s failure to act is rewarding tactics designed to avoid judicial review and to inflict significant harm on applicants and for women seeking to Abortion in Texas, I’m opposed.”
0 Comments