吃瓜大本营

In the Supreme Court鈥檚 5-4 majority opinion issued in December, the Court ruled that the most significant part of the ACLU鈥檚 case must be dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state attorney general. The Court ruled that a narrow portion of the case may proceed against the Texas Medical Board and other licensing authorities, but this will not provide widespread relief because it would not prevent bounty-hunter lawsuits from being filed. With this ruling, the case was sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The only task left for the Fifth Circuit to do was to send the case back down to the district court so the case could proceed against the state licensing officials. Instead of immediately doing so, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on January 7, 2022, to determine whether the court should grant a motion made by Texas asking the Fifth Circuit to request that the Supreme Court of Texas answer the question of whether the licensing official defendants have any enforcement authority under state law, and can therefore be sued. On January 17, the Fifth Circuit granted Texas鈥� request, which the Supreme Court of Texas accepted on January 21. Due to the unnecessary delay in returning the case to the district court, we filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 3, requesting that the Supreme Court order the Fifth Circuit to send the case to the district court. On January 20, the Supreme Court refused our request. Until then, as Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent to the denial of our mandamus petition, 鈥渢he District Court will remain powerless to address S. B. 8鈥檚 unconstitutional chill on abortion care, likely for months to come.鈥�

The case was first brought to the nation鈥檚 highest court on an emergency appeal in August after the Fifth Circuit cut off the only avenue to block the law from going into effect. On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court denied our request to block the law, allowing S.B. 8 to take effect on the same day. In October, the Supreme Court denied a second request to block the law while the Court heard oral arguments in the case.

This unprecedented law authorizes private individuals to file civil lawsuits to 鈥渆nforce鈥� the unconstitutional abortion ban. This scheme allows anyone 鈥� a relative, an abusive partner, or even a stranger 鈥� to sue the health care provider and seek a court order that would block the patient鈥檚 abortion and prevent medical professionals from providing any abortion after approximately six weeks in pregnancy. The law also incentivizes bounty hunting by offering money 鈥渄amages鈥� of at least $10,000 to anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after approximately six weeks in pregnancy.

Since the law went into effect, most Texans have been unable to access abortion in the state. The impact has fallen鈥痟arshest on marginalized communities, including people with low incomes, young people, and Black, Brown, and immigrant communities. Clinics in neighboring states reported huge upticks in Texas patients, resulting in weeks-long wait times for all patients due to the influx in need for time-sensitive care created by the Texas abortion ban. Unfortunately, the barriers to getting care out of state are often insurmountable and countless Texans have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will.

In a separate challenge filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and heard by the Supreme Court, the Court denied the DOJ鈥檚 request to block the law, leaving in place the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals鈥� denial of emergency relief that could have restored abortion access. Separately, several state court challenges seeking to declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional remain ongoing. On December 9, 2021, a Texas state court judge held S.B. 8鈥檚 private enforcement scheme violates the state constitution in one of the state cases brought by Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates and others. That decision has been appealed. In October, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court, Braid v. Stilley, on behalf of Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas doctor who provided abortion services in violation of the ban.

The ACLU鈥檚 case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of a broad coalition of Texas abortion providers, their patients, clinic staff, abortion funds, practical support networks, and clergy. Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, The Lawyering Project, pro-bono counsel Morrison & Foerster, and local counsel Christie Hebert of Johns & Hebert PLLC.