First:
United States, Petitioner
v.
Texas, et al.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
THE APPLICATION IS TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION:
MAY THE UNITED STATES BRING SUIT IN FEDERAL COURT AND OBTAIN
INJUNCTIVE OR DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST THE STATE, STATE COURT
JUDGES, STATE COURT CLERKS, OTHER STATE OFFICIALS, OR ALL PRIVATE
PARTIES TO PROHIBIT S.B. 8 FROM BEING ENFORCED.
_________________
Second:
Whole Woman's Health, et al., Petitioners
v.
Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, District Court of Texas, 114th District, et al.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The State of Texas adopted a law banning abortions at approximately six weeks
of pregnancy, in clear violation of this Court's precedents holding that a State cannot
prohibit abortion at a point before viability. To try to insulate this unconstitutional
prohibition from a federal challenge, the legislature crafted the law to prohibit
government officials from directly enforcing it and instead delegated enforcement to the
general public via civil actions that "any person" can file in Texas state court.
Petitioners Texas abortion providers and individuals and organizations that support
abortion patients-brought suit in federal court against, among others, the clerks and
judges of the courts where enforcement actions can be brought and the Texas attorney
general. The district court denied Respondents' motions to dismiss on standing and
sovereign-immunity grounds. Although Respondents' appeal is pending in the Fifth
Circuit, that Court has now issued an order that effectively forecloses Petitioners' claims
against the government officials.
The question presented is whether a State can insulate from federal-court review
a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general
public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.
______________________
For the text of SB 8, Click here.
