{"id":950939,"date":"2021-11-01T18:44:02","date_gmt":"2021-11-01T22:44:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=950939"},"modified":"2021-11-01T18:44:04","modified_gmt":"2021-11-01T22:44:04","slug":"supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-texas-pro-life-law-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-texas-pro-life-law-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Texas Pro-Life Law Case"},"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\">18<\/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%2Fsupreme-court-hears-arguments-in-texas-pro-life-law-case%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=950939&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--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/Supreme-Court-justices-group-photo-getty-640x335-1.jpg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" \/><\/div>\n<p class=\"subheading\"><span>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday regarding Texas\u2019s recently enacted pro-life legislation banning abortions after six weeks of gestation or once a heartbeat has been detected.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Two cases, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/21-463.html\"><em>Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson<\/em><\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510\/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510.68.0_3.pdf\"><em>United States v. Texas<\/em><\/a>, were converged into one three-hour hearing. In the first case<i>, <\/i>the Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on the Texas Heartbeat Act\u2019s private enforcement mechanism. In the second case, the justices were asked to consider whether&nbsp;President Joe Biden\u2019s Department of Justice has the right to sue Texas in order to block the law.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"gmxrevmore\" class=\"H\"><\/figure>\n<p><span>The legislation, also known as S.B. 8, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in May and went into effect on September 1.&nbsp; Since women do not often detect pregnancy prior to the sixth week, the law effectively bans abortions in the state.&nbsp;The law is different from other pro-life legislation tried in the past, in that the general public \u2014 instead of the government \u2014 can enforce it. Any private citizen may file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider or any other individual who \u201caids or abets\u201d a \u201ccriminal abortion.\u201d Abortionists and those who \u201caid or abet\u201d an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected must pay damages of at least $10,000 for each abortion performed or assisted.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>On October 15, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted 2-1 to temporarily reinstate the law while appeals are ongoing, reversing a lower court\u2019s ruling that had <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/politics\/2021\/10\/06\/obama-appointed-judge-blocks-texas-law-banning-abortion-six-weeks-pregnancy\/\"><span>blocked<\/span><\/a><span> enforcement of the pro-life law. The federal appeals court ruled that the Texas Heartbeat Act can remain in effect while litigation continues over whether the law is constitutional.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In a surprising order on October 22, the Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21a85_5h25.pdf\">granted<\/a> review \u2013 called a writ of certiorari \u2013 sought by several abortion clinics, including Whole Women\u2019s Health and various Planned Parenthoods. Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment several times during the Trump administration, typically multiple years pass without the justices short-circuiting the normal process of appellate review.<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p><span>Even when the Court does \u201cgrant cert\u201d before the relevant appeals court has rendered its judgment, it usually still goes through a normal process of filing briefs and preparing for oral argument, which typically takes more than three months. Here, by contrast, the justices had just granted cert on October 22, ordered all the briefs to be filed within days, and scheduled oral arguments scheduled for the following week \u2013 just ten days from granting review to hearing the case.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Hearing Highlights<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><em><strong>Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson<\/strong><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A large part of Monday\u2019s argument centered around whether the law should be subjected to federal pre-enforcement review \u2014 more pointedly, whether the Texas Heartbeat Act aligns with a previous ruling in the hallmark 1908 case called <em>Ex Parte Young<\/em>, which allows pre-enforcement lawsuits against state officials when the state is at odds with the U.S. Constitution of federal law.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Elena Kagan asked Mark Hearron,&nbsp;who argued on behalf of Texas clinics challenging the law, what they would like the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to be. She also acknowledged the complexity of the case, noting that&nbsp;the&nbsp;\u201cprocedural morass we\u2019ve gotten ourselves into with this extremely unusual law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Hearron replied, saying the clinics would ultimately like to see the Court order an injunction keeping Texas courts from docketing lawsuits brought under the Texas Heartbeat Act and an injunction keeping state officials from enforcing the law. He further argued that S.B. 8 paves a way for states to discount other laws they do not like using the private enforcement mechanism, even if those laws are protected by the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt will provide a roadmap for other states to abrogate other rights that have been recognized by this court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B3\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the \u201cchilling effect\u201d of the law, and both Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts question whether the state\u2019s court process can provide relief to Texas clinics.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose private pro-life stance is well-documented, seemed to say that state court could not provide Texas clinics the chance to fully defend the constitutionally protected right to abortion, as&nbsp;that right was declared&nbsp;by previous Supreme Court rulings,&nbsp;not by the explicit&nbsp;text&nbsp;of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p>\u201cThe full constitutional defense cannot be asserted in the defensive posture, am I right?\u201d Barrett said, in a line of questioning more favorable to the clinics.<\/p>\n<p>Kavanaugh questioned whether lawsuits against state judges are allowed under <em>Ex Parte Young<\/em>, saying that factor has \u201cbeen a real sticking point\u201d for him.<\/p>\n<p>The justices further broached whether judges could be considered enforcers of the law \u2014 Texas argued that judges are not enforcers because the enforcement of the law was designed to be left in the hands of private individuals, though clinics do not agree. Kavanaugh cited&nbsp;<em>Shelley<\/em><em>&nbsp;v.&nbsp;Kraemer<\/em>&nbsp;in 1948, in which the judges were labeled \u201cenforcers of the law,\u201d however Justice Alito did not agree with the characterization.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B4\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p><span>Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone argued in defense of S.B. 8, saying that while clinics are seeking an injunction against \u201cthe law itself,\u201d injunctions can actually only be issued against specific officials to keep them from enforcing the law.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice Roberts seemed to echo Justice Sotomayor\u2019s fears of the \u201cchilling effect\u201d by asking Stone a hypothetical question raising the bounty from $10,000 to $1 million.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cDo you think in that case, the chill on the conduct at issue here would sufficient to allow federal court review prior to the state court process?\u201d Roberts asked.<\/p>\n<p>Stone said the change in price did not make a difference, arguing that the case does not challenge sovereign immunity. He also noted that there are currently&nbsp;14 pre-enforcement review challenges pending in a multi-district litigation in Travis County state court. Roberts pushed back, questioning whether the bounty, no matter what cost, could disincentivize people from challenging&nbsp;a law\u2019s&nbsp;constitutionality in the hopes of eventually taking the case to federal court.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s not a question of the federal courts being more open. It\u2019s a question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they\u2019ll be subject to suit for a million dollars,\u201d Roberts said. That \u2014 that takes a lot of fortitude to undertake the prohibited conduct in that case.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Kagan, who is typically more liberal-leaning, asserted that the entire point of the Heartbeat Act\u2019s design was to \u201cfind the chink in the armor of&nbsp; <em>Ex Parte Young<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026After, oh these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands \u2026 that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights,\u201d Kagan said with sarcasm, apparently scoffing at the idea that the Supreme Court could be cleverly blocked from intervening.<b>&nbsp;<\/b><\/p>\n<p>\u201cTo say, \u2018Oh we\u2019ve never seen this before, so we can\u2019t do anything about it\u2019 \u2014 I just don\u2019t understand the argument,\u201d she continued.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Sotomayor asked whether the Texas law allowed private individuals to act as the Texas Attorney General, thereby enforcing the law as an extension of state power and undermining the original private enforcement mechanism of the law. Stone disagreed and held to the state\u2019s assertion that Texas officials have no involvement in the enforcement of the law.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe attorney general simply doesn\u2019t have any control of the procession of S.B. 8 lawsuits in any way,\u201d&nbsp; Stone said.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em><strong>United v. Texas<\/strong><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In the second half of the hearing, the justices first heard from&nbsp;Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the United States in her first argument as the newly confirmed solicitor general.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Clarence Thomas, who celebrated his 30th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice on Monday, pressed Prelogar on what interest the United States has in intervening to block Texas\u2019 law and asked if she had any examples of the United States previously acting in a similar manner. Prelogar said she could not think of any equivalent examples because of the unique nature of Texas\u2019s law.<\/p>\n<p>When Justice Kagan asked how the court should craft relief, Prelogar said the United State stands by the district court\u2019s initial decision to issue an injunction against Texas \u2014 which the Fifth Circuit subsequently lifted. Prelogar asserted that state judges would be bound by an injunction against Texas.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s unprecedented \u2026 to enjoin a state judge from even hearing a case. When has that been done? \u2026 A judge is a neutral arbiter,\u201dAlito rebutted.<\/p>\n<p>Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts all raised concerns about Prelogar\u2019s arguments regarding the \u201cchilling effect,\u201d saying many laws chill constitutional rights and questioned what makes Texas\u2019s law so different that the Biden administration would intervene.<\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice Roberts refuted the idea that it is \u201ctraditional\u201d for federal courts to issue an injunction keeping state court clerks and judges from filing lawsuits after Prelogar attempted to normalize the action as a means of blocking unconstitutional laws.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI recognize that this is a novel case. That\u2019s because it\u2019s a novel law,\u201d Prelogar replied.<b><\/b><\/p>\n<p>Stone returned to argue for Texas in the second case. He started out by saying that Congress would have to authorize the federal government to intervene, rather than the federal government acting of its own accord. He further argued that it is an&nbsp;\u201cextraordinary expansion of federal power that the government is asking for here.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Stone also argued that Texas has not nullified any laws after Justice Kagan said accepting Texas\u2019s position would be&nbsp; \u201cinviting states, all 50 of them, to try to nullify the law this court has laid down.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Jonathan Mitchell, who represents individuals bringing lawsuits under S.B. 8 and who played a primary role in developing the law, spoke after Stone and argued that federal&nbsp;courts&nbsp;cannot keep private citizens from filing lawsuits.<br \/>\u201cThe state has passed a law giving them the option to sue, and then washed its hands of the matter,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>The cases are&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/21-463.html\"><em>Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson,<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;No. 21-463 and <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510\/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510.68.0_3.pdf\"><em>United States v. Texas<\/em><\/a>, No. 21-588 in the Supreme Court of the United States.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday regarding Texas\u2019s recently enacted pro-life legislation banning abortions after six weeks of gestation or once a heartbeat has been detected.\u00a0 Two cases, &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"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-950939","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\/950939","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\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=950939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950939\/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=950939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=950939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=950939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}