{"id":955009,"date":"2021-11-02T18:14:22","date_gmt":"2021-11-02T22:14:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=955009"},"modified":"2021-11-02T18:14:25","modified_gmt":"2021-11-02T22:14:25","slug":"supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-two-challenges-to-texas-pro-life-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-two-challenges-to-texas-pro-life-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Two Challenges To Texas Pro-Life Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/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-on-two-challenges-to-texas-pro-life-law%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=955009&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 Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases surrounding the new Texas pro-life law.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Texas\u2019 Heartbeat Act effectively outlaws abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, when fetal cardiac activity can be detected. As The Daily Wire previously&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/supreme-court-rejects-abortion-providers-request-to-stay-texas-heartbeat-law\">reported<\/a>, \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&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">While the justices questioned the law on Monday, some also wondered about the Justice Department\u2019s action in suing a state.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As the Daily Mail <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-10152743\/Supreme-Court-hear-arguments-Texas-six-week-abortion-ban.html\">reported<\/a>, \u201cChief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns that the DOJ\u2019s case was too broad and sought \u2018an injunction against the world.\u2019\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cI share some of the concerns that have been voiced by my colleagues who say this case is very narrow, it\u2019s rare, it\u2019s particularly problematic,\u201d Roberts told Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. solicitor general. \u201cBut the authority you assert to respond to it is as broad as can be.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cIt\u2019s hardly traditional to get injunctions against judges, injunctions against everybody, right?\u201d Roberts said. \u201cThat\u2019s part of the relief you seek, isn\u2019t it? \u2026 So you\u2019re seeking an injunction against the world?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Brett Kavanaugh also said the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit was \u201cunusual\u201d and questioned what power the department had to issue a lawsuit over a state\u2019s law. Kavanaugh also pointed to an amicus brief filed by Second Amendment proponents in support of the abortion providers who were concerned states could copy the Texas pro-life law and use it to essentially get rid of constitutional rights.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The discussion also involved a previous case from 1908 called \u201cEx Parte Young.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/11\/01\/us\/politics\/what-is-ex-parte.html\">reported<\/a> by The New York Times, in that case:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The Supreme Court held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from trying to enforce unconstitutional laws.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">However, the court\u2019s majority decision, written by Justice Rufus W. Peckham, said that this mechanism could not be used to \u201crestrain the state court from acting in any case brought before it either of a civil or criminal nature.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">He added: \u201cAn injunction by a federal court against a state court would violate the whole scheme of this government, and it does not follow that, because an individual may be enjoined from doing certain things, a court may be similarly enjoined.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">During the arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas said, \u201cEx parte Young makes clear that federal courts cannot enjoin state judges.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As Fox News <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court-hears-texas-abortion-law-arguments\">reported,<\/a> \u201c[Texas Solicitor General Judd] Stone argued Ex parte Young does not<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases surrounding the new Texas pro-life law.\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\u00a0While the justices questioned the law on Monday, some also wondered about the Justice Department\u2019s action in suing a state.\u00a0As the Daily Mail reported, \u201cChief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns that the DOJ\u2019s case was too broad and sought \u2018an injunction against the world.\u2019\u201d\u00a0\u201cI share some of the concerns that have been voiced by my colleagues who say this case is very narrow, it\u2019s rare, it\u2019s particularly problematic,\u201d Roberts told Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. solicitor general. \u201cBut the authority you assert to respond to it is as broad as can be.\u201d\u201cIt\u2019s hardly traditional to get injunctions against judges, injunctions against everybody, right?\u201d Roberts said. \u201cThat\u2019s part of the relief you seek, isn\u2019t it? \u2026 So you\u2019re seeking an injunction against the world?\u201dJustice Brett Kavanaugh also said the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit was \u201cunusual\u201d and questioned what power the department had to issue a lawsuit over a state\u2019s law. Kavanaugh also pointed to an amicus brief filed by Second Amendment proponents in support of the abortion providers who were concerned states could copy the Texas pro-life law and use it to essentially get rid of constitutional rights.The discussion also involved a previous case from 1908 called \u201cEx Parte Young.\u201dAs reported by The New York Times, in that case:The Supreme Court held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from trying to enforce unconstitutional laws.However, the court\u2019s majority decision, written by Justice Rufus W. Peckham, said that this mechanism could not be used to \u201crestrain the state court from acting in any case brought before it either of a civil or criminal nature.\u201dHe added: \u201cAn injunction by a federal court against a state court would violate the whole scheme of this government, and it does not follow that, because an individual may be enjoined from doing certain things, a court may be similarly enjoined.\u201dDuring the arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas said, \u201cEx parte Young makes clear that federal courts cannot enjoin state judges.\u201dAs Fox News reported, \u201c[Texas Solicitor General Judd] Stone argued Ex parte Young does not provide a way for federal court intervention, at least until state courts first get a say.\u201dThe Supreme Court will reportedly be making a decision on whether the law is able to be challenged in federal court.\u00a0Last month, the Supreme Court declined to halt the law but agreed to give the two cases expedited review.In the\u00a0opinion 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.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":95,"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-955009","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\/955009","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\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=955009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/955009\/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=955009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=955009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=955009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}