Strict Texas abortion law goes into effect after SCOTUS inaction

[grumbler]

I say we take off and nuke the entire state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.  Sorry, Valmy.  Collateral damage is a bitch...

[Zanza]

Who pays the bounty? The defendant (which would just make abortions an issue for poor people as seems often the case with GOP policies) or the taxpayer ("small government")?

[Valmy]

The providers mostly, at least that is the intent.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Shadow docket voted 5-4 to let the Texas law stand, Roberts siding with the liberals.

[Syt]

[...]



[...]






From this thread: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1433278317269028865

[Oexmelin]

Is there a plan in motion to evacuate people from Texas as it falls to religious fundamentalists?

[Admiral Yi]

What I don't get is how they could pass this law but not the voting law because of no quorum.

[Solmyr]

Is there a plan in motion to evacuate people from Texas as it falls to religious fundamentalists?

I mean, any airlines or other transportation companies could be found guilty under this law if they let women use their services to leave the state.

[Sheilbh]

It's been picked up on UK legal twitter (SCOTUS decisions/rulings are always so stylistically different from SCOTUK it's always really interesting) - but there seems to be a real divide (including Roberts).

Totally agree with Roberts and Kagan that the whole scheme of this - that the state can avoid review of doing something unconstitutional if it isn't the one doing it, but instead it deputises private citizens is crazy.

[The Brain]

Crazy or not, it's the law now. Until the SCOTUS reverse course again, which may be tomorrow or in 50 years.

[Admiral Yi]

If I'm understanding correctly, they haven't ruled on the constitutionality yet, just declined to grant a stay.  So not settled law yet.

[Zanza]

If I'm understanding correctly, they haven't ruled on the constitutionality yet, just declined to grant a stay.  So not settled law yet.

It's law until they actually review it, no?

[Admiral Yi]

If I'm understanding correctly, they haven't ruled on the constitutionality yet, just declined to grant a stay.  So not settled law yet.

It's law until they actually review it, no?

Sure.

[Sheilbh]

If I'm understanding correctly, they haven't ruled on the constitutionality yet, just declined to grant a stay.  So not settled law yet.

Yeah - that's what I understood from Roberts' points - but while it may well be unconstitutional, surely if ever there's a case for staying the effect of a law while it's considered it's one that is on a big issues, that proposes a novel way of passing laws (basically states aren't responsible for them because they don't enforce them - they delegate that to the public) and a restriction on rights.

As Roberts points out this is a model of action for states in other areas (OvB mentioned the second amendment cases - but I don't see why you'd need to stop there) - if I was a liberal state I'd probably do something very similar, possibly around gun control right now:

The  statutory  scheme  before  the  Court  is  not  only  unusual,  but  unprecedented.    The  legislature has  imposed  a  prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large.  The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.
The  State  defendants  argue  that  they  cannot  be  restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place.  I would grant preliminary relief  to  preserve  the  status  quo  ante—before  the  law  went  into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.  Defendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention,  and  they  may  be  correct.    See  California  v.  Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8).  But the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at  least  preliminary  judicial  consideration  before  the  pro-gram devised by the State takes effect. 

It's also the force of Kagan's point:

Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72 hours'  thought,  this  Court  greenlights  the  operation  of Texas's  patently  unconstitutional  law  banning  most  abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas's scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State's behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court's ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek  them—in  clear,  and  indeed  undisputed,  conflict  with  Roe and Casey.

At the minute - the court has greenlit a loophole to the constitution would be my understanding.

Edit: And from what I understand that loophole exists until this case works it's way through the system and there's a full hearing and judgement on constitutionality.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Constitutionally I can see this be a concerning precedent, what is to stop liberal states for example from not outlawing private gun ownership, but creating some weird civil action process where individuals can see anyone who sells guns or owns guns sued under a similar regime?

That is exactly what they want to happen.  A blue state using this to outlaw guns validates them and makes their outrage that much stronger.