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.



CAC case page in United States v. Texas:


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


More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
November 1, 2021

As Supreme Court weighs Texas abortion law, opposing sides focus on its impact

Austin American-Statesman
While lawyers and U.S. Supreme Court justices frequently zeroed in on esoteric legal points during Monday's...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chuck Lindell
Civil and Human Rights
November 4, 2021

OP-ED: No, Really, the Right to an Abortion Is Supported by the Text and History of the Constitution

The Atlantic
For decades, conservative originalists have denounced Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—two Supreme Court cases that...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
November 1, 2021

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...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
October 29, 2021

If Supreme Court Rules Neither Abortion Providers nor DOJ Can Challenge S.B. 8, No Right Is Safe.

For non-lawyers trying to follow the various legal challenges to Texas’s six-week abortion ban known...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe

In CVS Pharmacy v. Doe, the Supreme Court is considering whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, covers disparate impact discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state can circumvent federal-court review of a law that prohibits the exercise of the constitutional right to abortion by delegating its enforcement...