Natalie Gomez-Velez, professor at City University of New York School of Law, discusses the oral arguments before the US Supreme Court on Texas' new abortion law and considers their implications for the constitutional system...
Last weeks US Supreme Court arguments in Whole Womens Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas challenging the Texas abortion ban revealed a startling vulnerability in the US system of federalism and constitutional supremacy. They laid bare that a states flagrantly unconstitutional six-week abortion ban, when structured to avoid effective judicial review, can flummox the Supreme Court while allowing the law to remain in effect for months. Such a state law scheme threatens not only constitutionally protected abortion rights, but potentially any constitutional right disfavored by any state legislature. The Justices know this. The Court must act now to stop this law and others like it.
The November 1, 2021 arguments focused not on the Texas bans unconstitutionality, but on whether and how abortion providers and the United States could sue to stop the law. Several Justices acknowledged that S.B. 8s unprecedented structure was designed specifically to avoid effective judicial review. Their questions revealed deep skepticism about the laws scheme to evade review of its unconstitutional six-week abortion ban. Such questions came from across the Courts ideological spectrum, including Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett (believed to favor narrowing or overturning abortion rights well-settled by almost fifty years of jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade), and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (who consider the abortion right under Roe and its progeny settled precedent). Indeed, virtually all of the Justices questions indicated that they see the Texas laws fundamental structural problems. That should predict a ruling that one or both challenges to the law will go forward and perhaps succeed in striking down S.B. 8. The question is, why is the Court permitting the law to remain in effect while considering these questions, especially when it knows that the law fundamentally undermines the supremacy of the Courts own decisions.
The Justices misgivings stem from S.B. 8s unprecedented design to evade judicial review of its clearly unconstitutional bana design that could be used to attack other constitutional rights. There is no dispute that S.B. 8s six-week abortion ban is unconstitutional under current law. Yet Texas legislated private enforcement to thwart judicial review of this question by exploiting loopholes in existing state action state sovereign immunity doctrines that determine who is authorized to challenge the law and who may be sued to invalidate it. Unlike most state abortion restrictions S.B. 8 is enforceable indirectly through civil lawsuits by private citizens against anyone who performs, aids and abets or intends to participate in a prohibited abortion.
The law authorizes any private party to sue anyone who assists a banned abortion, win damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion, and collect costs and attorneys fees. It allows virtually no affirmative defenses, affords no preclusive effect when defendants win, and denies costs to those wrongly targeted. This bounty hunter structure is designed specifically to shield the law from pre-enforcement reviewor any effective sweeping judicial reviewwhile chilling abortion access with threats of ruinous litigation carrying hefty statutory damages. In short, S.B. 8 is designed to impede abortion access through threats of costly ruinous litigation against anyone deemed to provide any kind of assistance, while limiting avenues to challenge the law and excising state actors who may be sued to invalidate the law.
The implications of S.B. 8s design extend well beyond abortion. That design, if replicated, threatens the entire constitutional structure of federal supremacy and judicial review. Justice Kagan went to the heart of the matter during the Whole Womens Health argument, noting:
[T]he entire point of this law, its purpose and its effect, is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young, [which] set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws[T]he fact that after, all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision, [and] the even broader principle that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights and to say, oh, weve never seen this before, so we cant do anything about it I just dont understand the argument.
Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan pointed out that S.B. 8s structure could serve as a model to eviscerate other constitutional rights. Kavanaugh noted that S.B. 8s structure could easily become the model for suppression of other constitutional rights And it could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here. Responding to Texass argument that a congressional remedy is needed to remedy the problem, Justice Kagan added isnt the point of a right that you dont have to ask Congress? Isnt the point of a right that it doesnt really matter what Congress thinks or what the majority of the American people think as to that right?
There appeared to be some differences in the Justices willingness to permit the USs case to proceed as compared with the case filed by private plaintiffs. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar made strong, compelling arguments about the need to protect the supremacy of federal constitutional law. However, some Justices expressed concern about permitting the United States to sue a state in equity, even for this purpose. For example, Chief Justice Roberts pressed Prelogar as to what limiting principle could be applied to broad equity suits by the federal government against the states. Prelogar responded that the limiting principle arises from the way this statute operates to try to deprive any meaningful review anywhere and again emphasized that such a suit to protect the supremacy of federal law would not open the floodgates for challenges involving ordinary state law private rights of action.
In both arguments, several Justices seemed to acknowledge that state law schemes like S.B. 8, if allowed, threaten other constitutional rights and severely undermine the constitutional order. The recognition of that threat begs the question why the Court has yet to enjoin S.B. 8. It recalls the Courts disconcerting rulings on September 1, 2021and October 22, 2021, declining to halt S.B. 8 pending resolution of the novel procedural questions presented by the laws design. Despite expedited consideration of these cases, the Courts continued failure to enjoin operation of a clearly unconstitutional law that daily causes irreparable harm significantly undermines fundamentals of the US constitutional structure, including the protection of individual rights, the Supremacy Clause, federalism, and judicial review. This is deeply problematic.
The Courts unwillingness to halt this unconstitutional law while reviewing its bizarre, evasive scheme undermines the rule of law as well as the Courts own legitimacy. As Justice Sotomayor correctly noted, every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole. Even Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting from the Courts earlier refusal to halt S.B. 8, noted [t]he statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented, because [t]he legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large, with the desired consequence appear[ing] to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime. Yet the Court still has yet to enjoin S.B. 8.
The record related to these cases is replete with examples of the irreparable harm suffered by women, doctors, and others affected by S.B. 8. In the days and weeks since S.B. 8 became law, the harmful effects of its abortion ban and nightmarish vigilante enforcement structure have become increasingly evident. For example, as the Justice Departments brief notes, S.B. 8 has blocked nearly all abortions that otherwise would have been performed in the state. Many seeking abortion care have traveled, often hundreds of miles, to other states for care, in some cases overwhelming providers in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and as far away as Nevada. This travel, along with waiting periods and other restrictions, delay abortion care, inviting medical complications and compounding anguish.
In addition, S.B. 8s bounty hunter provision not only works to diminish abortion access in Texas, but it also provokes harassment and profit-seeking well beyond Texas. As one report explains:
S.B. 8 invites lawsuits against anyone who performs or abets an abortion. That could mean an array of people and groups, including clinics and their employees, from doctors to receptionists; friends, relatives or strangers who pay for an abortion, including people who donate to or administer abortion funds; insurers that approve a claim; ride-share drivers who drive a patient to a clinic; and anyone who shares information about abortion options.
In short, S.B. 8s harmful effects extend well beyond Texas and impair far more than just abortion access. The questions raised during oral argument only strengthen the case for halting S.B. 8.
To the extent that the Court raised concerns about crafting an appropriate remedy, such concerns are addressed substantially in the District Court decisions. For example, US District Judge Robert Pittmans decision in US v. Texas provided a careful analysis addressing the USs standing to sue and the likelihood of success of its claims that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, and violates intergovernmental immunity. As Solicitor General Prelogar noted at argument, Judge Pittmans decision offers a workable remedy. It enjoined Texas from implementing S.B. 8 and enforcing it in any manner, and identif[ied] all the various stages of the S.B. 8 enforcement proceedings where that injunction would  operate to stop the threat of those enforcement actions that have chilled the exercise of the right.
In closing, Solicitor General Prelogar reminded the Court to:
think about the startling implications of Texass argument here Texass position is that no one can sue, not the women whose rights are most directly affected, not the providers who have been chilled in being able to provide those women with care, and not the United States in this suit. They say that federal courts just have no authority under existing law to provide any mechanism to redress that harm. And if that is true, if a state can just take this simple mechanism of taking its enforcement authority and giving it to the general public backed up with a bounty of $10,000 or $1 million, if they can do that then no constitutional right is safe. No constitutional decision from this Court is safe.
These arguments are compelling and implicate not only constitutionally protected abortion rights, but the very constitutional structure. The Justices questions during oral argument seem to signal that the Court will permit at least one, if not both challenges to proceed.
Yet the Courts failure to enjoin S.B. 8 while the cases are pending remains alarming. Permitting flagrantly unconstitutional action to go unchecked by cynical state legislative sleight of hand threatens much more than the constitutional right to abortion. It threatens the very character of US constitutional governance and the rule of law. It also threatens the Supreme Courts legitimacy, which is already in doubt.
Natalie Gomez-Velez is a professor of law at City University of New York School of Law and the director of the Center on Latinx Rights and Equality.
Suggested citation: Natalie Gomez-Velez, SCOTUS Skepticism and the Texas Abortion Law, JURIST Academic Commentary, November 8, 2021, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/11/natalie-gomez-velez-supreme-court-abortion-ban-arguments/.
This article was prepared for publication by Katherine Gemmingen, Commentary Co-Managing Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at email@example.com
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
The rest is here:
- The Republic Day is a reminder of the spirit of federalism and why it is under strain - The Indian Express - January 21st, 2022
- Should Democrats look to the states? - The Week Magazine - January 21st, 2022
- Peace talks will be held if the NCA and the constitution do not affect the building of a union based on democracy and federalism: SAC's Chair - Eleven... - January 21st, 2022
- PDP ready to shove APC out of power at the centre Agbaje - New Telegraph Newspaper - January 21st, 2022
- The Constitution's Basic Principles: Federalism ... - January 19th, 2022
- Proposed amendment to IAS cadre rule 1954 'against spirit of cooperative federalism': Mamata Banerjee writ - Economic Times - January 19th, 2022
- Nepal`s ruling coalition parties agree to hold local elections in April - WION - January 19th, 2022
- Beyond the Accord and beyond India's reach - NewsIn.Asia - January 19th, 2022
- What US Gets Wrong About Vaccines That Other Countries Get Right - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin - January 19th, 2022
- Letters: Let's lance the Indy boil with a fully informed vote - HeraldScotland - January 19th, 2022
- Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls | Mamatas campaign for SP will help BJP: Adhikari - The Hindu - January 19th, 2022
- More could be done to restore peace as invitation already extended for peace talks resumption: Snr Gen Min Aung Hlaing - Eleven Myanmar - January 19th, 2022
- Biden's Higher Education Agenda, One Year In - The Dispatch - January 19th, 2022
- Federal control of elections, and getting the filibuster out of the way - Bluefield Daily Telegraph - January 19th, 2022
- How Ghana lost its federalism -- and lessons for others - The Conversation CA - January 11th, 2022
- Opinion | Why the politics of blame avoidance shouldn't be working in Canadian federalism - NiagaraFallsReview.ca - January 11th, 2022
- Extending GST compensation as a reform catalyst - The Hindu - January 11th, 2022
- Administrative federalism - The News International - January 9th, 2022
- Federalism and the Value of Institutional Experience During a National Disaster: Identifying Determinants of Rapid Emergency Medicaid Waiver Adoption... - January 9th, 2022
- 'Local control' of government is a hallowed idea in Wisconsin. Here's what we can do to give it real meaning again. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - January 9th, 2022
- Lowry: The left supports the Constitution until it doesnt - Boston Herald - January 9th, 2022
- Governors are the last adults standing in American politics | TheHill - The Hill - January 9th, 2022
- Time to remove insincerity from resource control Opinion - Guardian - January 9th, 2022
- Sorry, Democrats: Civil War isn't likely even if you're trying to provoke one - New York Post - January 9th, 2022
- Opinion: It will be a dreary Christmas in Ethiopia this year, and here's why Americans should care - Iowa City Press-Citizen - January 9th, 2022
- Indian Origin Tamils and Muslims refused to ink Tamils' joint letter to Indian PM - NewsIn.Asia - January 9th, 2022
- What is Federalism? - Definition & Factors of U.S ... - December 29th, 2021
- Masari: Power rotation will strengthen our federalism - TheCable - December 29th, 2021
- Nagaland To Lakhimpur Kheri: Rights, Regimes And Restitutions in Times Of Turbulence - Outlook India - December 29th, 2021
- Poland accuses Germany of trying to form 'Fourth Reich' - DW (English) - December 29th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 61 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian Nigeria - December 23rd, 2021
- PREP Act Preemption: There is no COVID-19 Exception to Federalism - JD Supra - December 23rd, 2021
- What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About American Democracy - The Nation - December 23rd, 2021
- Combatting air pollution in Northern India: Cooperative federalism is the way forward - Observer Research Foundation - December 23rd, 2021
- Ethiopia: A regressive vision spells the end of the republic - The Africa Report - December 23rd, 2021
- New Federalism - Wikipedia - December 7th, 2021
- Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States ... - December 7th, 2021
- The country is moving towards a union based on democracy and federalism and it will not deviate at all: SAC's Chair - Eleven Myanmar - December 7th, 2021
- New law will be "end of Russian federalism," says North Russian MP - The Independent Barents Observer - December 7th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 58 - Guardian Nigeria - December 7th, 2021
- After Roe, The Coming Fight to End All Abortions Everywhere - Justia Verdict - December 7th, 2021
- Irreconcilable aspirations: A regressive Ethiopian vision spells the end of the republic - Ethiopia Insight - December 7th, 2021
- Tourism minister says theres no advantage in politicising border closures - Australian Aviation - December 7th, 2021
- The Meaning Of The Constitution | The Heritage Foundation - November 28th, 2021
- Federalism | CONSTITUTION USA with Peter Sagal | PBS - November 28th, 2021
- Federalism | tutor2u - November 28th, 2021
- How Modis lack of federalism led to failure of farm laws and three other weekend reads - Scroll.in - November 28th, 2021
- Success of NEP 2020 Hinges on Cooperative Federalism, States Taking Ownership of Reforms - News18 - November 28th, 2021
- What does the federal government do? | ShareAmerica - November 25th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 57 | The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and... - November 25th, 2021
- Formation of New Regional States Debunks Myth that the Current Gov't is anti-federalism - Mustafa Mohammed - - Walta Information Center - November 25th, 2021
- Nigeria is a federation in name only, and Buhari is unable to change this - The Africa Report - November 25th, 2021
- SZC: Better ties mooted in spirit of federalism - Devdiscourse - November 15th, 2021
- Punjab Assembly passes resolution against Centres BSF order, calls it insult, violation of the spirit of fe - The Statesman - November 15th, 2021
- Karnataka CM Basavaraj Bommai to other states: Give us our share of water - The New Indian Express - November 15th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 54 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian Nigeria - November 9th, 2021
- National interest demands a strong, impartial CBI. The loss of trust in the agency among opposition ruled stat - The Times of India Blog - November 9th, 2021
- Leave advocates of true federalism, self-determination alone; face banditry, terrorism, Afenifere tells Buhari - Vanguard - October 3rd, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - part 49 - Guardian - October 3rd, 2021
- The Smart Cities Mission is an assault on cooperative federalism - The News Minute - October 3rd, 2021
- I dont believe in 2023 elections -Afenifere leader Adebanjo - Punch Newspapers - October 3rd, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 48 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian - September 24th, 2021
- States rights and the Constitution: What rights do states have? | Opinion - Deseret News - September 24th, 2021
- COVID-19 and Federalism in India: Capturing the Effects of State and Central Responses on Mobility - DocWire News - September 24th, 2021
- Opinion/Conley: RI's noble reasons for resisting the Constitution - The Providence Journal - September 24th, 2021
- Federalism and the Single National Curriculum - Geo News - September 10th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 46 - Guardian - September 10th, 2021
- Have SC's attempts to depoliticise police inadvertently led to a weakening of federalism? - Scroll.in - September 10th, 2021
- What is radical federalism, what would it look like and should Labour back it? - LabourList - September 10th, 2021
- Is the filibuster unconstitutional? | Opinion | murrayledger.com - Murray Ledger and Times - September 10th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 44 - Guardian - August 28th, 2021
- Some governors are mismanaging COVID and misunderstanding Federalism | TheHill - The Hill - August 28th, 2021
- Formulation of NEP live example of cooperative federalism: Pradhan - Business Standard - August 28th, 2021
- Modis authoritarianism has obliterated precept of federalism as envisaged by founding fathers of Constitution - National Herald - August 28th, 2021
- Just How Long Is the Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction? - Bloomberg Law - August 4th, 2021
- The Trump Administration Feuded With State and Local Leaders over Pandemic Response Now the Biden Administr - Governing - August 4th, 2021
- EPA, Army announce next steps for crafting definition of waters of the united states - Water Technology Online - August 4th, 2021
- EPA outlines plan to expand wetland protections - E&E News - August 4th, 2021
- Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 40 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian - August 2nd, 2021
- Lawyer Asks N'Assembly to Amend Constitution to Reflect True Federalism - THISDAY Newspapers - August 2nd, 2021