WASHINGTON — The Justice Department sought to put a quick stop to a restrictive anti-abortion law in Texas after the Supreme Court refused to do so, seeking an emergency injunction to block it long enough for a court to rule it unconstitutional.

The 27-page complaint, filed Thursday in federal court in Austin, Texas, seeks both an immediate and permanent injunction against the law, which bars almost all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference.

The Supreme Court refused last week to block the measure, as requested by abortion providers in Texas, while it’s challenged in lower courts.

The law, known as Texas Senate Bill 8, deputizes citizens to sue people who perform or aid in the procedure, allowing them to collect at least $10,000 and legal fees if they succeed in court.

Garland called the law an “unprecedented scheme” using “bounty hunters.”

“The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible,” Garland said. “This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear.”

The lawsuit comes as Garland and the Justice Department are facing mounting pressure to take action from President Joe Biden, congressional Democrats and advocates for women’s reproductive rights. Garland denied, however, that political pressure had anything to do with the decision to file the lawsuit.

The department is seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment, is preempted by federal law and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

The lawsuit comes as the conservative-controlled Supreme Court prepares to hear a Mississippi appeal that seeks to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Some legal experts questioned whether the suit will succeed in stopping the Texas measure.

“The trick here isn’t the merits; those were always going to be incredibly strong,” University of Texas constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck said in a tweet. “The trick is how to get the right relief against the right defendants. A declaratory judgment against TX is a good start, but it’s not clear how a court can enjoin ... everyone ... from enforcing it.”

But Neal Katyal, who served as the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer under President Barack Obama, said the procedural issues aren’t all that different from what the Justice Department faced when it sued Arizona a decade ago over its crackdown on illegal immigration. The Supreme Court scaled back the Arizona law in 2012.

“The vigilante provision is tricky but not that hard to create a case around, particularly given the chilling effect,” Katyal said. He said that the lawsuit “tees up a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court about whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overruled.”

Garland said in a statement Monday that the department was urgently exploring all options to challenge the Texas law. The department will use powers under an existing law to provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack, Garland said then.

Biden said last week that he believed the Justice Department may have some ability to “limit” the legislation, without providing details. He called the law an “assault” on abortion rights.

The case is: U.S. v. State of Texas, 21-cv-00796, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Austin).


©2021 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

(2) comments


I’ve known people who were the children of people who felt forced to parent them. A longtime best friend, pre-dating her becoming a vascular surgeon, said her mom told her she had wanted an abortion. I was adopted myself. It made for some interesting conversations. Not feeling entitled to walk among wanted people without somehow proving your value is a common thread in my experience. But encouraging strangers and others to rat out a private predicament for 10k crosses a line even if you are pro-life.


[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup] Deb!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!