Monday’s arguments could indicate how the justices will rule on a larger abortion case that will be heard one month later. It asks them to overrule two landmark abortion cases, Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood.
However, abortion is not the issue in Texas cases. The court will decide whether abortion providers and the federal government can sue in federal courts over Texas law. Chief Justice John Roberts described Texas’ enforcement mechanism as “unusual” and “unique,”
The Texas law that effectively bans abortion after six weeks has been approved by the high court. This is despite the fact that it conflicts with the Roe or Casey decisions. These cases will continue to be the law of the country until the Supreme Court declares otherwise.
Who CAN BE SUED, AND WHO CAN NOT?
Texas law prohibits abortion if cardiac activity is detected within the fetus. This usually happens around six weeks, and some women may not even realize they are pregnant.
Federal courts have not had to block similar laws that are inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings on abortion. These rulings essentially prohibit states from banning abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. This happens usually at 24 weeks.
Texas’s law enforcement system is what makes it different. Instead of letting state officials enforce the law as is often the case, Texas gives the power to private citizens. They can sue anyone who aids or performs abortions. A woman who is pregnant cannot be sued.
Texas legislators claim that the law was written in this way to be difficult to challenge in federal courts.
The law was blocked by abortion providers at first, but they were stopped by a federal appeals court. Finally, the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department intervened with a new suit. The law was blocked by a federal judge, who agreed with the new suit’s substance. However, the appeals court reinstated the law within 48 hours.
The court refused to block the Biden administration’s request, but they did agree to rule on whether either the federal government or providers could sue federal court in the early stages of the court fight to stop a law that, according to the administration, “made abortion practically impossible in Texas after approximately six weeks of gestation.”
In court papers, the state and an architect said that enforcement was the decision. This means federal courts are now closed to law-challengers. These issues include who to sue, and whether federal courts can compel state judges follow their orders.
The constitutionality of the law is not directly in dispute in either case, but both lawsuits are motivated by the Texas ban conflicting with Roe and Casey.
___
EXPRESS LANE
Bush v. Gore, Watergate tapes, Pentagon Papers, and a few other cases were all heard by the justices. The court had a strict timeline and made it possible for the justices to hear and decide the Texas cases. This compressed months of arguments and briefings into weeks and sometimes days.
These situations were characterized by deadlines that had to be met or the fate and future of the presidency.
It is not clear why the court has acted so quickly. A petition to block the September law was rejected by the justices 5-4.
Last month, the conservative majority issued a one-paragraph opinion that cited “novel” and “complex” procedural issues. The court typically leaves these questions to lower courts before it intervenes.
Surveys after the Texas abortion vote by the court showed a sharp drop in support for the court. A number of justices also made public pleas to not be seen as partisan politicians around the same period.
It is possible that these concerns are addressed by the decision to give full review of the Texas cases.
Additionally, the court may want to resolve the Texas cases before deciding on the case from Mississippi. This case could have a significant impact on abortion rights in America.
The justices have not provided an explanation for their actions. It is unknown when the court will make a decision.
___
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were the only justices to have been members of the court during Bush-v. Gore. This case effectively settled the 2000 election for Republican George W. Bush. Thomas was part the majority. Breyer dissented.
Roberts worked as a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist from 1981 to 1981. The court quickly decided a case relating to the release of American hostages in Iran. The court was given a deadline by the U.S. for transferring previously blocked assets to Iran. It took the court less than a month just to hear, decide and grant the request. Rehnquist drafted the court’s opinion eight days after hearing arguments.
