I didn’t see an updated thread, so I thought I would start one. TX law stays 5-4 (Roberts). No standing to sue anyone except the medical licensing board officials who might take action against an abortion doctor’s medical license.
I’m mixed, but leaning towards Roberts’ view. The law is dangerous, but the remedy could prove even more dangerous. And if the remedy is right, then why isn’t it applied broadly like to criminal defendants?
All of the articles are talking about a mixed decision, but it seems like a near complete win for TX. From my reading it seems that the only action could be a suit against the licensing board officials which would prevent them from taking action against an abortion doctor’s medical license for violating SB8, which was never the largest concern about the law.
It seems like it survives until TX courts strike it down, which is probably more troubling than the remedy that would provide for it. I’m firmly neutral on the decision and I’m sticking to it!
As the opinion notes, it would be one thing if you cabin the federal intervention only to “willy-nilly” violations of the Constitution, but then you have disputes about what willy-nilly means. Should the entire system of government be changed to allow for pre-suit injunction of this law? And if that is so important, why not permit it for arguably even more important things like review of criminal convictions? Where does it stop?
I don’t see any reason to need to care about “where it stops.” The line is where it always has been for injunctions: will not allowing it cause irreparable harm? Waiting for an actual case means that the person will be harmed irreparably before the suit takes place. Therefore it should be proper to issue an injunction until the issue is adjudicated.
They’ve passed a law that circumvents a right that the Supreme Court has previously stated that people have. Allowing there to be any point where that right is abridged is clearly harmful. Imagine a state passing a law saying that anyone has standing to sue you for $1000 for obscenity if you are found supporting a Republican candidate. Do you think such a law should be allowed to go into effect?
There’s a clear and obvious issue here, and the Court is punting by caring more about procedure than preventing harm or usurping its Constitutional authority. If the Court grants a right to something, no state should be able to override that right up until the Court decides that precedent was mistaken.
It just shows the partisan nature of the Court right now. If it was a right that they cared about, they’d allow an injunction.
The decision they made is substantially meaningless. It allows to stand the part of the law that gives any self-appointed abortion vigilante standing to sue anyone who helped the abortion happen. It’s just a fig-leaf of a decision, by which they hope to keep things cool until they can issue the REAL decision, which will be the scuttling of Roe v Wade in the Mississippi case, upon which this Texas law will be totally moot anyway.
We’ve seen it suggested that, shoud SB8 stand, then New York or California could just as well pass a similar law to ban guns, or other “liberal” causes. I think we can all guess how the Supreme Court would rule. They (the conservative majority) are principled: They are exactly the partisan hacks (and Amy Coney Barrett’s denials prove it!) who will rule in the right-wing direction as a matter of principle, most of the time.
Lawrence Tribe isn’t exactly a neutral commentator.
The posters here just seem to be outraged, but has anyone read the opinion. Gorsuch makes some excellent points. Let’s say that a federal court could enjoin state court clerks from docketing SB 8 lawsuits. What then? Clerks are not attorneys. A qualification for a clerk is to be able to take a pleading and put it in the correct location for further action by a judge. Now they would be required to read a complaint, determine if it is an SB 8 claim, and refuse to file it. How do they know that? Will it be a requirement that an attorney be on staff to review a complaint to see if I can file it? Can I sue the attorney?
What is my remedy for a wrongful determination by a non-lawyer clerk? Say I had an abortion and the doctor promised that it would cost $300 but he sends me a bill for $500 and dings my credit when I don’t pay so I sue him. An untrained clerk sees “abortion” in my complaint and wrongfully refuses to docket it because she believes it to be an SB 8 complaint. What is my remedy? Can I sue the clerk? What if she refuses to docket that suit thinking it is an SB 8 run around?
The consequences may be an effective closing of the courts—a drastic remedy in violation of well established law solely to preserve a manufactured right to an abortion. I no longer have a power to have a judge hear my complaint, but an untrained clerk in a summary fashion. That is astounding.
And if it is a good thing, why not apply it broadly? Let’s say that my state takes a dim view of the Miranda line of cases. I am accused of a murder and the police literally beat an improper confession out of me. I am in jail. I am convicted at trial because the judge ignores Supreme Court precedent. The state appeals courts ignore it. In a miracle, the US Supreme Court reviews my conviction and after serving 5 years in prison for a murder I didn’t commit, finally my state is forced to follow the federal constitution. Under the dissent’s argument, shouldn’t I be allowed to go to federal court in the middle of or even prior to my state trial?
Isn’t five years in prison more of an imposition on a person than having to travel to another state to get an abortion?
For everyone saying that it is just politics, it is partially true and the very reason why the Supreme Court should not be declaring things to be rights when there is robust debate on it without doing a real analysis of whether such a thing is a right taken from the people to decide.
As I understand it (and maybe one of our lawyer Dopers will chime in), it’s a question of standing- i.e. do the people who are bringing suit have the legal right to do so? Typically, standing in civil court is determined by whether someone has suffered damages, but in this case, the statute grants explicit standing to anyone to sue.
That level of legal nitty-gritty isn’t a SCOTUS sort of thing- it’s very clearly a state level thing. A[nd in fact, a state district judge has struck down that part, saying that part of the law is invalid, because according to the article it :
“unconstitutionally granted standing to those who were not injured, denied due process and represented an “unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person.””
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The key words are “cases” and “controversies.” If they aren’t that, then the federal judiciary has no power to hear them. Case law has discussed what cases and controversies are, and “standing” is a shorthand word for having to have a real interest in the case, a particular injury, etc.
Of course, this is federal law. A state can allow its judiciary more power, and can allow suits by a plaintiff who is not injured. As noted above, TX may not allow these suits under TX law.