AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — A Texas judge has ruled that the state’s controversial abortion law, Senate Bill 8, violates the constitutions of both the United States and the Lone Star State.
State District Court Judge David Peeples wrote in his 48-page ruling that the law’s provisions, which permit private citizens to sue one another to enforce the law, are unconstitutional. While Peeples wrote in his ruling that the law should not be enforced, he did not issue an injunction blocking the law.
Underlying the court battle are 14 individual cases filed by abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, against the pro-life organization Texas Right to Life. Abortion providers sued the organization to stop them from filing suits against them under the new law.
Senate Bill 8 bans abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, approximately six weeks before many women learn that they are pregnant. The law does not provide exceptions for instances of rape or incest.
To enforce the law and avoid judicial review from courts, GOP lawmakers crafted the law to be enforced by private individuals, not the government. Anyone, whether they live in Texas or not, may file a lawsuit against anyone who conducts or assists in an abortion procedure after six weeks.
Claimants can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 and legal fees if they are successful in their suit. In this way, the law uses the threat of costly litigation to force clinics across the state into compliance.
Responding to the ruling Thursday, Texas Right to Life’s communications director, Kimberly Schwartz, wrote in a press release that the ruling does not change the law, it just blocks the organization from filing lawsuits under it.
“The only difference today’s ruling makes is that other pro-life activists, judges, and attorneys may be convinced not to hold the abortion industry accountable if they violate the law,” wrote Schwartz.
While the law is still in effect, abortion rights advocates see Thursday’s ruling as a win for reproductive rights in Texas. In a joint statement, three Planned Parenthood chapter presidents applauded the ruling, but said there is still more to do.
“We will continue to work with our partners to help patients find the funding, child care, transportation, and time off work to travel hundreds of miles out of state instead of seeing a provider in Texas,” the statement read.
Peeples took issue with the law’s enforcement mechanism.
“SB 8 is an unguided and unsupervised delegation of enforcement power to private persons,” the judge wrote. “This case is not about abortion; it is about civil procedure.”
Elaborating further, Peeples said the law as unguided since it effectively deputizes millions to bring claims against abortion providers without prior supervision or screening from a state agency.
The pro-life organization argued that the law does offer guidance in its text concerning who can be sued and what actions qualify as a violation of the law. Peeples balked at this argument, finding that the law effectively ties the courts’ hands when it comes to reviewing the law and considering punishments against organizations and people found guilty of violating the law.
In his order, Peeples agreed with the plaintiffs that, because SB 8 allows private individuals to file suit without having to prove they were harmed, it violates the Texas Constitution’s open courts provision. According to the provision, persons who have been injured in any fashion are guaranteed the right to seek legal action.
Additionally, Peeples wrote, the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, because the law is punitive and not compensatory.
Despite his critical interpretation of the law, Peeples did not enjoin the law from statewide enforcement. The judge said explicitly that the law is unconstitutional and should not be enforced, but private individuals will still have the authority to file lawsuits under SB 8.
The overall fate of the law rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court initially allowed the law to take effect after denying an emergency motion to block it. However, the law worked its way back to the court after a federal district court judge in Austin blocked the law and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s ruling.
Now on an appeal before the high court, some justices seemed to take issue with the law’s method of enforcement during arguments. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the law is exploiting a loophole and posed the question of the same method of enforcement being used to limit Second Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling on the case in the coming months.
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
Starbucks union April 24, 2024