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
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 is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
February 17, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.
Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...