Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Abortion: Process Arguments in Supreme Court Must Not Obscure SB8’s Impact on Real People 

WASHINGTON – Following today’s oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

The focus in today’s oral arguments on process questions shouldn’t obscure the impact that the Texas law, SB8, is already having on real people. Moreover, if the Court were to conclude that neither of these cases can go forward, the result would be to endanger people’s ability to exercise all manner of rights. At its heart, these cases are about whether states can nullify constitutional rights and then make it effectively impossible to get judicial review. The answer to that question is plainly no. There were signs that some of the conservative justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, are wrestling with these issues. Indeed, Justice Kavanaugh seemed to suggest in his questioning that SB 8’s model could be used by states to flout other bedrock rights. The stakes of this case are enormous: if the Court fails to stop SB 8 now it will cause immediate, real harm, and set a dangerous precedent for the right to access abortion across the nation and Americans’ ability to enjoy other fundamental rights.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/whole-womans-health-v-jackson/

CAC case page in United States v. Texas: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/united-states-v-texas-sb8-litigation/

“If Supreme Court Rules Neither Abortion Providers nor DOJ Can Challenge S.B. 8, No Right Is Safe.,” CAC Blog, Miriam Becker-Cohen, October 29, 2021: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/if-supreme-court-rules-neither-abortion-providers-nor-doj-can-challenge-s-b-8-no-right-is-safe/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Williams v. Huner

In Williams v. Huner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether a Pennsylvania prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with rigid neck and wrist braces and effective pain medication violated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Womble v. Patel

In Womble v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans