Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Texas Abortion Ban Likely Headed to Supreme Court 

WASHINGTON – Following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay a district court decision enjoining S.B. 8, a law that infringes on the constitutional right to a pre-viability abortion, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement:

We are disappointed by the Fifth Circuit’s 2-1 decision to stay Judge Pitman’s thoughtful ruling enjoining S.B. 8.  S.B. 8 is a brazen and unprecedented attack on the supremacy of federal law and the constitutional rights of Texas’s people, and there is no doubt that the United States has the power to sue to defend itself and its people who have been harmed by Texas’s flagrantly unconstitutional law. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the federal government’s right to sue to vindicate the public interest, even when Congress has not passed a law explicitly authorizing it to do so.  Moreover, given the unique statutory design of S.B. 8 and its effects on the fundamental right to abortion, recognizing the United States’ right to sue here would vindicate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and federalism—principles that S.B. 8 has undermined.

The Fifth Circuit was wrong to grant the stay today, and we expect the federal government to ask the Supreme Court to lift it.  The Supreme Court should do so promptly.

#

Resources:

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

##

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
May 13, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.