Scenario would have to be, law is immediately challenged and the lower courts issue a prelim. injunction against it. While the injunction is in force it is again legal to sell tobacco. People sell tobacco. Those people cannot be arrested at a later time, no later decision can make it so what used to be legal is now illegal.
~Max
Surely you do not mean to say, if Dr. Joe provides one abortion in Austin he can be sued by 10 different residents in 10 different counties?
That is patently ridiculous.
~Max
No, the law says he doesn’t have to pay damages twice for the same abortion. But if he performed 10 abortions in Austin, he can be sued by 10 residents in different counties. Or by 10 residents in one conservative county:
Sec. 171.210. CIVIL LIABILITY: VENUE.
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 15.002,
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a civil action brought under
Section 171.208 shall be brought in:
(1) the county in which all or a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred;
(2) the county of residence for any one of the natural
person defendants at the time the cause of action accrued;
(3) the county of the principal office in this state of
any one of the defendants that is not a natural person; or
(4) the county of residence for the claimant if the
** claimant is a natural person residing in this state.**
(b) If a civil action is brought under Section 171.208 in
any one of the venues described by Subsection (a), the action may
not be transferred to a different venue without the written consent
of all parties.
Bolding mine. And nobody can change venue unless the claimant agrees.
And non-mutual issue preclusion? Since the claimant has no interest/harm whatsoever.
~Max
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award
relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection
(a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant
previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under
Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion
performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the
particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or
induced in violation of this subchapter.
It sounds like he can keep getting sued over and over until he loses, but once he loses, he is free on that one. This is pretty bad, and again, I hate legal abortion.
Wow.
Notwithstanding any other law, the following are not a
defense to an action brought under this section: […]
(5) non-mutual issue preclusion or non-mutual claim
preclusion;
Throwing out the doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion in this way is a blatant violation of due process, actionable in federal court, IMO. There’s clear legislative intent to encourage abuse of the courts / legal harrassment via this law.
~Max
Sec. 30.022. AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS
CHALLENGING ABORTION LAWS. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any
person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks
declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political
subdivision, any governmental entity or public official in this
state, or any person in this state from enforcing any statute,
ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that
regulates or restricts abortion or that limits taxpayer funding for
individuals or entities that perform or promote abortions, in any
state or federal court, or that represents any litigant seeking
such relief in any state or federal court, is jointly and severally
liable to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.
So if you are a lawyer and you challenge the constitutionality of the law, and you lose, YOU pay along with the abortion doctor. Wow! I guess that will deter many lawyers from even taking the case. Wow indeed.
“any other type of law that regulates or restricts abortion or that limits taxpayer funding for individuals or entities that perform or promote abortions”
Not just this particular law.
~Max
Good catch. And in federal court as well. So if this goes up all the way to SCOTUS, and they overturn Roe so they say this law is good, the attorney is on the hook for big money. Big money. This just acts to deny people their day in court.
Reading this closer, he has to fully pay. If he says, “I’ll wait to pay until my appeals have run their course” then he hasn’t met the wording of the statute and may be sued over and over again for a single abortion. So, in other words, if you fight us on this, you damn well better win or else you’re screwed.
This law is like a legal cheat code.
So could the following ploy work? Abortion clinic hires lawyer on retainer. As soon as they perform an abortion, this lawyer runs down to the law office and sues them for $10,000. The abortion doctor pleads no contest and settles the matter as quickly as possible. This lawyer then take the award and gives it back to the doctor. Admittedly this is a huge hassle, and there are presumably other legal fees that figure in so its not sustainable, but would this work theoretically?
I’m morbidly curious just how much stuff is in this Pandora’s Box once or if it’s opened.
Someone already mentioned that this could essentially be blueprinted to take away gun rights. How much worse can this get? What’s the maximum amount of wow-we-screwed-up that we can see as the consequences of this law in other realms?
Morbidly, morbidly curious indeed.
This could essentially allow factional interests really opposed to certain otherwise constitutional activity (say speech that is offensive to Christians, or selling of firearms, or operating of massage parlors, or selling of pornography, or conducting Islamic religious services) be flooded with a very capricious civil process where a litigant with no attachment to the activity can forum shop infinitely until they get a result they want against a person engaged in an otherwise legal activity.
It really is a breakdown of our system of laws. I think the Texas legislators did this to create problems for abortion and without thinking about the add on effects, but there could be serious issues with just basic functioning of our society if this sort of law gets expanded to other states and on other subject matters.
It would be a civil proceeding so no pleading involved. The problem with your scenario is that even if it works said doctor can still be sued by anybody in any court in Texas, and in each case must prove to the claimant’s home court that he already paid $10,000 in statutory damages for that particular abortion. Then he’s off the hook for the $10,000 in that particular case… but still has to pay the claimant’s lawyer’s fees.
Lionel Hutz will be moving to Texas and filing claims for everybody in the phone book, and doc & his lawyer will be on the hook for Hutz’s legal fees every. single. time.
~Max
At least for inter-state, this kind of schenanigan is explicitly precluded by the faith & credit clause.
~Max
By expanded to other states I’m specifically saying other states passing similar laws, particularly ones that target other constitutionally protected behaviors (ex. speech, firearms ownership, free association, your pick.) I’m not referring to the Texas law being applied outside of Texas.
That seems like a pointless hairsplit. If anything, pregnancy represents a greater burden for a longer period than donating a kidney. The woman’s uterus is definitely involved in the process and that’s definitely her, and if someone can say “I claim total control over ‘my DNA’ and thus if I don’t have to share a kidney against my will, I’ve decided my DNA isn’t going to cooperate with this pregnancy, either.”
And if your follow-up is that the use of her uterus isn’t permanent, while the donation of a kidney is, then can you compel the donation of blood and bone marrow and other renewables?
U.S. citizens are not allowed to sue a state legislature / the state itself in federal court without the state’s consent, per Amendment XI to the U.S. Constitution. The federal government would have to be the one to bring suit, or to abridge the state’s sovereignty, by appropriate statutory authority.
42 USC 1983 does abridge state sovereignty but if you are suing state judicial officers, injunctive relief may only be sought if the judge violates a declatory decree or if declatory relief was unavailable.
~Max
OK, I’m confused about one thing: is the Supreme Court’s declining to hear the case a de facto abortion ban and a clear sign of how right wing the court is or not? A lot of folks out there are going nuts saying that these are true, but a lot of folks go nuts about a lot of things, and this thread’s liberal posters seem a lot less despairing and angry than I thought they’d be if that were so. (Which, again, is a poor indicator, but I think you get my drift.)