DOJ asks court to block enforcement of Texas’ six-week abortion ban

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — The Justice Department filed an emergency motion late Tuesday, asking a court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to block Texas’ new six-week ban on abortion.

The department, which sued the state last week in federal court over the law, say it is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent and its clear purpose is "to deny women rights guaranteed to them."

Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8, also dubbed the Texas Heartbeat Act, into law in May and it went into effect on Sept. 1. Since then, the bill has sparked multiple legal challenges at the state and federal levels.

The law bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, at approximately six weeks, which is often long before a person is aware they are pregnant, and there is no exception for cases of rape or incest.

One provision of the law places enforcement of it in the hands of private citizens. People can sue abortion providers, clinic staff, or anyone who “aids and abets” someone to receive the procedure. Citizens filing suits against providers could be awarded up to $10,000 and attorneys fees.

Critics of the bill say it amounts to a total ban on abortion in the state and places bounties on women’s health care providers and the families of women who obtain an abortion.   

“When other states have enacted laws abridging reproductive rights to the extent that S.B. 8 does, courts have enjoined enforcement of the laws before they could take effect," the Justice Department argued in its request for a temporary injunction.

“In an effort to avoid that result, Texas devised an unprecedented scheme that seeks to deny women and providers the ability to challenge S.B. 8 in federal court,” it continued.

The motion explains that "Texas has established a scheme to largely extinguish a constitutional right within its borders while purporting to prohibit any executive official from enforcing that scheme, for the purpose of making it more difficult for individuals to seek redress of the constitutional violation in federal court."

But the Justice Department argues the state can't "persuasively contend that state judges may not be enjoined from playing a role in the State's unconstitutonal scheme."
in the State’s unconstitutional scheme."

The Justice Department says the federal government will be irreparably harmed absent an injunction, not only because of the state's attempt to thrwart judicial review, but also because the law hinders the operations of the federal government.

"The United States has a strong and legitimate interest in ensuring that states respect their obligations under the Constitution, and in fulfilling the United States’ responsibilities under Federal law. If Texas’s attempt to nullify the Constitution of the United States prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents," the motion states.

In contract, the department contends Texas would not suffer any harm from an injunction

Because abortion providers are under the threat of being sued by individuals in the state, the bill has limited access to abortion in Texas. The Justice Department asserts that this statute goes against precedent established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the right to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

The impact of SB 8 has also emboldened citizen “vigilantes” leading to harassment, surveillance, trespassing of abortion providers’ staff, according to the Justice Department.

“This harassment continued on Reddit forums discussing how individuals could turn in doctors and messages to one doctor threatening murder,” the motion states.  

The bill has already been seen before the U.S. Supreme Court where the conservative majority declined to issue an emergency stay on the law. 

Follow Kirk McDaniel on Twitter

Follow @KirkReportsNews

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit