{"id":910536,"date":"2021-10-22T15:59:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-22T19:59:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=910536"},"modified":"2021-10-22T15:59:40","modified_gmt":"2021-10-22T19:59:40","slug":"scotus-declines-to-halt-texas-pro-life-law-sets-date-for-review-of-two-cases-challenging-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-declines-to-halt-texas-pro-life-law-sets-date-for-review-of-two-cases-challenging-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Declines To Halt Texas Pro-Life Law, Sets Date For Review Of Two Cases Challenging Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">32<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-declines-to-halt-texas-pro-life-law-sets-date-for-review-of-two-cases-challenging-rule%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=910536&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p class=\"p1\">On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to halt a Texas pro-life law but agreed to give two cases regarding challenges to the law expedited review, with oral argument set for Monday, November 1.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">In the <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.npr.org\/documents\/document.html?id=21090565-scotus-on-united-states-v-\">opinion and order<\/a>, the high court stated:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Consideration of the application (21A85) to vacate stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">In addition, the application is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted limited to the following question: May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part, but also dissented in part, writing an opinion about the court\u2019s action.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Sotomayor acknowledged, \u201c[t]he Court is right to calendar this application for argument and to grant certiorari before judgment in both this case and Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson\u2026in recognition of the public importance of the issues these cases raise. The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care, who are entitled to relief now.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">She added, \u201cThese women will suffer personal harm from delaying their medical care, and as their pregnancies progress, they may even be unable to obtain abortion care altogether. Because every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole, I dissent from the Court\u2019s refusal to stay administratively the Fifth Circuit\u2019s order.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>As Politico previously <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2021\/10\/21\/texas-supreme-court-abortion-ban-516505\">reported<\/a>, \u201cTexas on Thursday&nbsp;urged the Supreme Court to turn away a Biden administration effort to halt enforcement of the state\u2019s six-week abortion ban but broached the possibility that justices could also opt to use the matter to more broadly consider decades-old precedents affirming abortion rights.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As The Daily Wire <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/doj-officially-asks-supreme-court-to-block-texas-pro-life-law\">reported<\/a> earlier this week, the Biden administration\u2019s Justice Department officially asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on Texas\u2019s pro-life law yet again and temporarily halt the law while legal actions continue.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/18\/us\/politics\/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html\">reported<\/a>&nbsp;by The New York Times:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The court signaled that it may act quickly. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who oversees the federal appeals court responsible for Texas, asked officials there to file their response to the Justice Department\u2019s application by Thursday at noon. The court could rule in the following days.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The Justice Department\u2019s brief&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/21\/21A85\/196650\/20211018120230336_US%20v.%20Texas%20application%20final.pdf\">stated<\/a>&nbsp;that<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to halt a Texas pro-life law but agreed to give two cases regarding challenges to the law expedited review, with oral argument set for Monday, November 1.In the opinion and order, the high court stated:\u00a0Consideration of the application (21A85) to vacate stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument.\u00a0In addition, the application is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted limited to the following question: May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part, but also dissented in part, writing an opinion about the court\u2019s action.\u00a0Sotomayor acknowledged, \u201c[t]he Court is right to calendar this application for argument and to grant certiorari before judgment in both this case and Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson\u2026in recognition of the public importance of the issues these cases raise. The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care, who are entitled to relief now.\u201dShe added, \u201cThese women will suffer personal harm from delaying their medical care, and as their pregnancies progress, they may even be unable to obtain abortion care altogether. Because every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole, I dissent from the Court\u2019s refusal to stay administratively the Fifth Circuit\u2019s order.\u201dAs Politico previously reported, \u201cTexas on Thursday\u00a0urged the Supreme Court to turn away a Biden administration effort to halt enforcement of the state\u2019s six-week abortion ban but broached the possibility that justices could also opt to use the matter to more broadly consider decades-old precedents affirming abortion rights.\u201dAs The Daily Wire reported earlier this week, the Biden administration\u2019s Justice Department officially asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on Texas\u2019s pro-life law yet again and temporarily halt the law while legal actions continue.As\u00a0reported\u00a0by The New York Times:\u00a0The court signaled that it may act quickly. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who oversees the federal appeals court responsible for Texas, asked officials there to file their response to the Justice Department\u2019s application by Thursday at noon. The court could rule in the following days.The Justice Department\u2019s brief\u00a0stated\u00a0that the law is \u201cclearly unconstitutional.\u201d\u201cAllowing S.B. 8 to remain in force would irreparably harm those interests and perpetuate the ongoing irreparable injury to the thousands of Texas women who are being denied their constitutional rights. Texas, in contrast, would suffer no cognizable injury from a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a plainly unconstitutional law,\u201d it went on.\u00a0The brief also requested that the high court go around the appeals court and take it on as a case this year.\u00a0Texas\u2019 Heartbeat Act effectively outlaws abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, when fetal cardiac activity can be detected. As The Daily Wire previously\u00a0reported, \u201cThe Texas law allows citizens to sue abortion providers and those who \u2018aid and abet\u2019 illegal procedures for a financial reward if the lawsuit is successful.\u201d\u00a0The Biden administration has attempted to block the law in the courts prior to this most recent effort.\u00a0The Supreme Court previously refused to block the law and notably didn\u2019t rule on the constitutionality of it when it did so. Rather, it made its decision based on specifics of the law\u2019s enforcement mechanism.The Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-910536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=910536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910536\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=910536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=910536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=910536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}