From the Texas Tribune: Federal judge sanctions Texas in voter registration lawsuit

More on both voter registration, and conflict between the state of Texas and the national government.

- Click here for the article.

A federal judge has ordered sanctions against the state of Texas for blowing past deadlines and ignoring a court order to hand over thousands of pages of documents in a lawsuit challenging its voter registration practices.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office’s “months-long delay” in producing the documents “has been disruptive, time consuming, cost consuming” and has burdened plaintiffs in the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of San Antonio wrote in an order signed Thursday. Garcia ordered the state to pay some of the plaintiffs’ legal fees, including those tied to the sanctions request.

The Texas Civil Rights Project last March sued on behalf of four Texans who allege the Department of Public Safety denied them the opportunity to cast a ballot — and violated federal law — by failing to update their voter registration records online.

The group, hoping for quick action during the 2018 election cycle, argued in a motion for sanctions last month that foot-dragging from Paxton’s office was hampering its case. State lawyers turned over less than 2 percent of the 55,000 requested pages by Jan. 17 — a court-ordered deadline set after Texas asked for several extensions.

From the Texas Tribune: Federal court blocks Texas fetal remains burial rule

For our look at federalism.


- Click here for it.

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks ruled Texas cannot require health providers to bury or cremate fetuses, delivering another blow to state leaders in the reproductive rights debate.

The ruling comes more than a month after the Texas Department of State Health Services slated the mandate to go into effect Dec. 19. Lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sued in December to stop the rule, won a temporary restraining order to halt its implementation, and earlier this month Sparks delayed his decision, saying he needed more time to review the evidence.

The agency initially released the proposed burial rule in July just days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Texas’ abortion provider restrictions. The rule announcement spurred intense debate between reproductive rights groups and anti-abortion groups.

During two public hearings, department leaders heard stories of abortions, miscarriages, and general grief over losing a baby. While anti-abortion groups argued that the rule was a means to bring human dignity to the fetuses, reproductive rights advocates said the rule was another way for Texas to punish women who chose an abortion, saying the cost of the burials would be passed on to patients, making abortions harder to obtain for low-income Texans.

My Statesman: Greg Abbott presses Texas Supreme Court to limit gay-marriage ruling

More - expected - conflict between Texas and the U.S.

- Click here for the article.

Ratcheting up pressure on the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, Gov. Greg Abbott and other leading GOP officials Friday urged the court to revive efforts to abolish employee benefits the city of Houston provides to married same-sex couples.

The case has become a rallying point for the state’s social conservatives, with the stakes growing larger now that Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state Attorney General Ken Paxton have weighed in — telling the court that the Houston lawsuit provides an opportunity to limit the impact of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage.

“This court should take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that all disputes involving the right to same-sex marriage have not been resolved,” Abbott, Patrick and Paxton said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The Houston case presents a particular challenge for a court that strives to appear above politics while its justices are forced to run every six years as members of a particular political party.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have peppered the court with dozens of emails asking justices to strike down the Houston benefits or face a voter backlash in future Republican primaries. The barrage makes it clear that some GOP voters view the case as a litmus test for party loyalty and adherence to Christian values.

From the Texas Tribune: Paxton Blasts Clean Power Plan Ahead of High-Profile Legal Arguments

More conflict between Texas and the EPA.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of trying to “force Texas to change how we regulate energy production,” through what he called an “unprecedented expansion of federal authority.”

“What we need is more reliable energy — not less, and the EPA is trying to stop that,” the Republican said while appearing on a panel in Washington, D.C.

Paxton specifically targeted the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s state-by-state effort to fight climate change by shifting away from coal power to cleaner-burning natural gas and renewable resources.

His appearance on the panel, organized by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, came one day before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is to hear four hours of oral arguments over the carbon dioxide-cutting rule. Those watching the litigation say the outcome could make or break Obama’s legacy on climate change.

Mentioned in the article:

- The EPA.
- The Clean Power Plan.
- Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
- Environment Texas- Brattle Group
- Texas Clean Energy Coalition.
The case being considered by the DC court is State of West Virginia v EPA.

For 2306 today - all from the Texas Tribune

- Federal Regulators Take Teladoc’s Side in Medical Board Suit.

Teladoc, the Dallas-based company that sued Texas over its telemedicine regulations, has a new ally in the Federal Trade Commission.

In a letter sent to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court late Friday, the federal antitrust agency sided with Teladoc in the company’s legal battle, criticizing the Texas Medical Board for allegedly misinterpreting case law.

The telehealth company sued last year to block board rules that in most cases require face-to-face contact between a patient and a physician before a physician can issue a prescription.

That threatened Teladoc’s business model, which virtually connects Texas patients to remote, Texas-licensed doctors, some of whom are based out-of-state. The company says its physicians consult patients over the phone for routine medical issues, and patients can upload photos or other information describing their symptoms and medical history.

Teladoc filed an antitrust lawsuit against the regulatory Texas Medical Board in federal courtlast year, alleging that the 19-member board made up mostly of doctors had behaved like a cartel by passing rules intended to limit competition.

- Empower Texans Escalates Battle With Ethics Commission.

The influential conservative group Empower Texans is escalating its long-running battle against the Texas Ethics Commission, accusing a former member of the state watchdog agency of improperly seeking to influence state legislation.

Empower Texans President Michael Quinn Sullivan on Thursday lodged a criminal complaint against Tom Harrison, who abruptly resigned in June as the commission's vice chairman. The complaint, filed with the Travis County district attorney's office, alleges that Harrison illegally gave gifts to lawmakers in his role as deputy director of the Texas County and District Retirement System, one of the state's largest pension funds.

Sullivan says that activity should have required Harrison to register with the state as a lobbyist. And even if Harrison did register, he still would have been in violation of another rule saying lobbyists cannot serve on the ethics commission.

- Lawmakers to Examine Ballooning Cost of Tuition Program for Texas Veterans.

State university leaders have long complained about what they call an underfunded mandate to provide an increasing number of veterans and their dependents a free college education under the Hazlewood Act. After failed attempts in the last legislative session to restrict eligibility, school officials will meet with House lawmakers Tuesday at the Capitol to discuss ways to pay for it, including tapping the state’s savings account.

From Slate: Texas Supreme Court Justice: States Can Deny Same-Sex Spousal Benefits to “Encourage Procreation”

More conflict between the dominant political cultures in Texas and the United States. This fits material we've been discussing in 2306. It also illustrates the tension inevitable in federal systems. Texas continues to chafe against the requirement that they recognize same sex marriages.

- Click here for the article.

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court refused to review a lower court ruling holding that cities may not deprive married same-sex couples the benefits it provides to opposite-sex couples. The court’s decision leaves in place a pro-equality ruling that forbids the government from discriminating against gay people for no good reason. But one judge, Justice John Devine, argued that his court should have taken the case and reversed the lower court’s judgment. His opinion is an ominous sign that conservative judges are striving to work around Obergefell v. Hodges and affirm the constitutionality of state-sponsored anti-gay discrimination.

Devine is clearly no fan of Obergefell, and his dissent attempts to minimize that decision to an almost dishonest degree. “Marriage is a fundamental right,” Devine wrote. “Spousal benefits are not.” Devine insisted that Obergefell’s affirmation of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to wed does not preclude Texas from discriminating against married, same-sex couples in other ways. Obergefell, the justice argued, was strictly limited to gay people’s fundamental right to marry. So long as a state does not revoke that right, it can deprive same-sex couples of other benefits guaranteed to opposite-sex couples. Specifically, Devine wrote, the government can refuse to give spousal benefits to its gay employees because they are gay.

Why should Texas be permitted to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits provided to opposite-sex couples? Because the state has an “interest in encouraging procreation.” Devine speculates that “offering certain benefits to opposite-sex couples would encourage procreation within marriage.”

Lawsuits in Texas

From the Texas Tribune:

- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Waller County Over Gun Ban.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Waller County over its ban on guns at its courthouse.

The suit, filed Monday afternoon in district court in Travis County, centers on a provision of Texas' new open-carry law, which took effect in January. The law, which allows Texans with licenses to openly carry handguns, has an exemption prohibiting firearms "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" unless a written regulation or the individual court authorizes it.

Paxton argues in the suit that the exemption does not apply to the courthouse in Waller County, northwest of Houston, because the building has non-judicial areas, such as the county clerk's office.

“A local government cannot be allowed to flout Texas’s licensed carry laws, or any state law, simply because it disagrees with the law or doesn’t feel like honoring it,” Paxton said in a statement Tuesday. “I will vigilantly protect and preserve the Second Amendment rights of Texans.”

- Texas Appealing Judge's Dismissal of Lawsuit over Syrian Refugees.

Texas is appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the federal government and a refugee resettlement agency over the placement of Syrian refugees in the state.In a notice dated Aug. 12, Texas alerted the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that it would appeal a June decision by Dallas-based U.S. District Judge David Godbey, who ruled the state did not have grounds to sue the federal government over the placement of refugees in Texas and that the state failed to provide a “plausible claim” that a refugee resettlement nonprofit breached its contract.

Representatives with the Texas attorney general’s office, which is representing the state in the lawsuit, declined to comment.

Texas first filed suit in December against the federal government and the International Rescue Committee — one of about 20 private nonprofits that have a state contract to resettle refugees in Texas — in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris that left 130 dead. Following those attacks, Texas’ Republican leaders raised concerns about the refugee vetting process, and Gov. Greg Abbott in November directed resettlement nonprofits in Texas to halt the resettlement of any Syrian refugees.

Plyler v Doe

This illustrates a few points in class including access to education and how the Supreme Court interprets (and reinterprets) the 14th Amendment.

- US Courts: Access to Education - Rule of Law.
- Oyez: Plyler v Doe.
- Wikipedia: Plyler v Doe.

From the Houston Chronicle: Texas judge blocks federal directive on bathrooms and transgender students

This is worth discussion.

It applies to a variety of topics we will cover in class including federalism, civil rights, presidential power, the courts, and checks and balances. And probably more, like the role of Texas' attorney general, and electoral politics. And still more!

- Click here for the article.

A Fort Worth federal judge temporarily has blocked the implementation of President Obama's directive ordering public schools across the country to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify.

In a 38-page ruling issued late Sunday, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor said he was blocking the directive because it contradicted other regulations and because the federal government had not complied with rules regarding public comment and notice.

"This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students' rights and that of personal privacy when using school bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other intimate facilities, while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school...," O'Connor wrote. "The resolution of this difficult policy issue is not, however, the subject of this Order."

The Obama administration issued the directive in May, in the middle of a still-ongoing fight over a North Carolina law that requires people to use public bathrooms of the gender of which they were born. The directive implied that public schools could lose federal funding for not accommodating transgender students.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who led a coalition of 13 states who sued over the directive in May, said he was "pleased" with Sunday's injunction.

"This President is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform," Paxton said in a statement. "That cannot be allowed to continue."

Civil rights advocates expressed disappointment with the ruling. The Human Rights Campaign said it would "thousands at risk as they return to school."

"Judge O'Connor's decision to bar the Department of Justice from enforcing this important guidance puts thousands of transgender students at even greater risk of marginalization, harassment, and discrimination as they return to school this fall," said Sarah Warbelow, the organization's legal director, in a statement. "All students, regardless of their gender identity, deserve to be able to learn in an environment free from discrimination."

Judicial challenges to Texas' education funding system

Texas has been front and center - not always in a good way - regarding the constitutionality of education policy.

For consideration:

1973 - San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez.
1981 - Plyler v. Doe.
1991 - Edgewood v Kirby.
2015 - Morath et al v. Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition et al.

From 538: Tighter Restrictions Are Losing In The Battle Over Voter ID Laws

The federal courts are checking state legislatures.

- Click here for the article.

The struggle over who can vote on Election Day is becoming more heated in courtrooms, judges’ chambers and statehouses across the country, paralleling the intensity of the presidential race. And at the moment, the side that wants fewer voting restrictions seems to be winning.

The battle began in earnest after 2010, when several Republican state legislatures began tightening identification requirements on voters. It has reached a new level in the 2016 election, when voters in 17 states faced new restrictions that ranged from photo ID requirements to cutbacks on early voting and same-day registration. Republicans said the laws were necessary to prevent fraud; Democrats and voting rights advocates said the restrictions were really designed to reduce participation by minority groups and young voters who traditionally support Democrats.

“It’s the biggest rollback of voting since Jim Crow,” said Jonathan Brater, an attorney at NYU Law’s Brennan Center for Justice, which compiled the list of restrictions.1

But in just the past few weeks, several of these laws have been blocked or overturned by federal judges. On Monday, a District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction against a voter ID law in North Dakota. In the previous 10 days, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ID law in Texas violated the Voting Rights Act, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a law in North Carolina, and a District Court judge in Wisconsin ruled that elements of the law there were unconstitutional. There is also major voting-law litigation ongoing in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio and Virginia.

From the Texas Tribune: Paxton Opinion Slams Schools' Transgender Policies

Doing what he is constitutionally authorized to do.

A great example of conflict between the three levels of government.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday issued an opinion saying the Fort Worth school superintendent who made headlines for formulating guidelines to accommodate transgender students exceeded his authority. Paxton also said that a portion of the guidelines instructing district employees not to out transgender students to their parents might violate state law.

Citing a part of the Texas education code, Paxton wrote that school district boards of trustees — not superintendents — are required to adopt policies while superintendents can only implement those policies “by developing administrative regulations.”
Attorney general opinions are not legally binding, and Paxton's interpretation has no direct legal impact on the Fort Worth district.

The Fort Worth ISD guidelines are in line with a directive from the Obama administration — issued after the guidelines were adopted — that instructed school districts across the country to ensure that transgender students are not discriminated against. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick requested the opinion three weeks after calling for Fort Worth ISD Superintendent Kent Scribner’s resignation.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas vs. the Feds — A Look at the Lawsuits

Add this to our look at federalism.

- Click here for the article.

Since President Obama took office in 2009, the state of Texas has sued his administration at least 42 times, according to a Texas Tribune analysis of state data — a point of pride for the state's Republican leaders.

Former Texas Attorney General and current Gov. Greg Abbott filed 31 of those lawsuits. His successor, Ken Paxton, has mounted 11 such legal challenges since taking office in 2015. Paxton's office has provided cost estimates for 39 of those cases, which as of mid-2016 totaled about $5.9 million.

So what did Texans get for their money? So far, there have been seven cases in the win column for the state, with 12 losses, nine cases withdrawn and 14 pending. (Scroll down to see details on each case.)

In the state's most recent win, a split U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down Obama's executive order that would have provided relief from deportation to millions of people. But the outcome of that case could change after a new justice is appointed. Texas' most recent loss came in June, when a district judge in Dallas dismissed a lawsuit over the resettlement of Syrian refugees here. When the ruling came out, Paxton said that his office was "considering our options moving forward."

Many high-profile cases are still making their way through the legal process, including lawsuits over new limits on smog, directives on bathroom use in public schools and climate change policy.

From the Texas Tribune: The Brief: Texas Files 40th Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

Texas has led the charge suing the federal government - usually on 10th Amendment grounds - to overturn laws impacting the state.

- Click here for the story.

Texas was one of 11 states to file a lawsuit Wednesday to stop a directive from the Obama administration for public school districts to let transgender students use the bathroom of their choice, marking the 40th time the state has filed suit against his administration.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit, calling the federal guidelines "outside the bounds of the constitution."

The Tribune's Morgan Smith wrote that Paxton filed the lawsuit this week because Harrold Independent School District, which sits near the Oklahoma border, passed a policy earlier this week "requiring students to use bathrooms according to the gender cited on their birth certificates."

“Harrold Independent School District fulfilled a responsibility to their community and adopted a bathroom policy puts the safety of their students first,” Paxton said Wednesday at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. “Unfortunately the policy placed them at odds with federal directives handed down earlier this month. That means the district is in the crosshairs of Obama administration which has maintained it will punish anyone who doesn’t comply with their orders.”

. . . Since President Obama took office in 2008, Texas has sued his administration 40 times, the Tribune's Neena Satija, Ryan McCrimmon and Becca Aaronson wrote. Paxton has filed nine of those lawsuits while his predecessor, former Texas Attorney General and current Gov. Greg Abbott, filed 31 of them.

Of the 40 cases that have been filed against the feds by Texas, court documents show the Lone Star State winning six and withdrawing eight. In 10 cases, the courts ruled against the state. The remaining 16 cases are still pending.

From ScotusBlog: Argument preview: A big, or not so big, ruling due on immigration

Lyle Denniston preview next week's oral arguments in a case where Texas is challenging the president's delayed deportation policy. The case in United States v Texas.

- Click here for ScotusBlog's page on it.

Here's what's at issue:

(1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

Here's Denniston's preview:

In many ways, the case of United States v. Texas illustrates much about the current political climate in America and in the nation’s capital, in particular. It reflects gridlock, partisan polarization, and the use of sometimes imaginative lawsuits to pursue political or policy agendas. It is a modern echo of what the Founders debated with great intensity: how to divide up the powers of national and state governments. But this dispute’s pure political content is a product of the modern era’s partisan warfare, the stubborn refusal to compromise in order to get something done, even in very important fields of policy.

President Obama and Congress have not been able to put together a comprehensive new immigration policy, and so the president has opted to make unusual uses of claimed executive authority. His government’s November 2014 orders would put off, for three years and perhaps longer, the compelled deportation of upwards of four million undocumented immigrants, some of whom came to the country illegally and others who had permission to enter but overstayed and lost that status. Most of them are parents of children who have a legal right to remain. The parents would not gain U.S. citizenship, but would be allowed to remain in the country without legal status and could get a job and access to public benefits, such as driver’s licenses.

The legal fight was brought on by states where Republicans dominate the governments, and where the idea of suing the national government over policy disputes has grown more and more popular. United States v. Texas is as much a part of those efforts as have been the repeated courthouse challenges to Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), with states playing major roles in those cases, too.

From the Texas Tribune: Courts Rebuff Texas Bid to Slow Foster Care Reform

An area of conflict between Texas and the national government - one that does not involve the environment!

- Click here for the article.

The state of Texas lost two intermediate battles Monday in its fight to block a federal judge's efforts to reform a foster care system that she found has violated children's civil rights by subjecting them to rampant neglect and abuse.

A higher court rejected Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to stop the appointment of "special masters" by U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi to oversee reforms.

Jack quickly appointed two masters favored by children’s rights advocates: Francis McGovern, a Duke University law professor, and Kevin Ryan, partner at the New Jersey nonprofit Public Catalyst, which advocates for child welfare. Jack rejected candidates nominated by the state.

The masters are expected to study the system and recommend changes, such as hiring more caseworkers to work with foster children and heightened oversight of foster group homes.

“This is a tremendous day for thousands of children in Texas state foster care,” said Paul Yetter, the lead attorney for long-term foster children and their advocates who brought the lawsuit that prompted Jack's ruling. “After years of unsuccessful attempts to address the failings of an undeniably broken system, meaningful reform can finally take root.”

The Tidelands Controversy

The chapter on the Texas Attorney General mentions this controversy, and the role then Attorney General Price Daniels, Sr. played in arguing Texas' side of the case. In case you want more on it:

- TSHA: Tidelands Controversy.

And for more - cause why not?

- TSHA: Price Daniels, Sr.

From the Office of the Texas Attorney General

For discussion in 2306:

- The Texas Attorney General v the U.S.A.

And while we are on the subject, here is the TSHA's description of the office:

- Click here.

As the chief legal officer of the state of Texas, the attorney general protects state interests through judicial proceedings and legal advice. His constitutional authority is broad but briefly stated, and the Texas legislature and the courts may augment his official powers. Whenever the interests of Texas state government are involved in civil law, the attorney general must represent and defend those interests. The state of Texas is represented by the attorney general in the courts of Texas and of the United States. The office influences all Texas government agencies through its advisory-opinion function, whereby the attorney general provides specified officials with guidance on how to perform their duties legally.

The attorney general works with governmental agencies in a variety of functions, such as assisting the secretary of state and the governor in extradition proceedings, approving the form of official papers, appearing before grand juries in an informational capacity, initiating inquiries into suspected illegal activities, examining the legality of bond issues for state and local governments, and preparing legal instruments for state agencies. The attorney general has regulatory or punitive civil powers over corporations and must protect charitable trusts through court action. Taxation and property are two functional areas significant to the work of the attorney general; the attorney general sues for recovery of taxes owed the state of Texas and protects the public interest with respect to abandoned property that escheats to the state. The attorney general acts against persons or corporations violating the environmental-protection laws of Texas or illegally extracting natural resources. The office also enforces the state's antitrust laws and prosecutes persons who mishandle state funds.

From ScotusBlog: Argument analysis: Two options on abortion law?

This is the case from Texas about whether restrictions on abortion clinics create an "undue burden"to women. The author walks through the argument.

The case is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

- Click here for the article.

It was unmistakably clear on Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s first close look at abortion rights in nine years will turn on the reaction of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and there were at least sturdy hints that he would lead the Court in one of two directions. In an intense argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that ran twenty-six minutes longer than scheduled, Kennedy seemed poised to find a way out of a four-to-four split — if the initial vote comes to that — or to strike down by a narrow vote the two restrictions at issue in the 2013 Texas law, known as “HB2.”

Within minutes after the argument began shortly after ten o’clock, it seemed that the case might bog down in a dispute about whether the case contains any solid evidence of whether HB2 was, in fact, the cause for the sudden closing of half of all abortion clinics in the state and would cause even more to close if the Justices upheld the law’s two main clauses. The two are a requirement that all abortion doctors have a professional privilege to admit patients to a nearby hospital, and a requirement that all abortion clinics upgrade to facilities capable of performing surgery. There was even some question about whether the admitting privilege was still at issue.

But when the argument turned from the reason for closures to a question of the capacity of any remaining clinics to handle the tens of thousands of abortions that women in the state seek every year, the case shifted abruptly. It was Kennedy who raised the possibility that the case be sent back to lower courts to allow lawyers to put in evidence about that capacity question.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Case Could Define Extent of Abortion Limits

For out look in 2306 at the relationship between the state of Texas and the national government - federalism they call it.

- Click here for the article.

Before Wendy Davis took to the floor of the Texas Senate for an 11-hour filibuster that ultimately failed to stop sweeping new restrictions on abortion, there was Casey.

Shorthand for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but gave states more power to restrict the procedure to “further the health or safety of a woman." The 5-4 ruling, however, also said states can't enact “unnecessary” regulations that have the “purpose or effect” of imposing an undue burden on those seeking the procedure.

On Wednesday, the court is expected to revisit the standards set by Casey — and potentially redefine the next era of abortion restrictions in the United States — when it takes up a legal challenge to Texas’ 2013 abortion restrictions, collectively known as House Bill 2. The Texas case, formally known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, will allow the court to address disagreements among lower courts over what constitutes an undue burden and clarify how far states can go in restricting abortion.

It's the next step of a legal journey that began in Texas when lawmakers passed HB 2 almost three years ago. The law requires abortion clinics begin to meet the same standards as hospital-like ambulatory surgical centers, which range from minimum sizes for rooms and doorways to the number of nurses required to be on staff. A separate provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

Only 19 Texas clinics remain of the more than 40 that were open before HB 2 passed, and the restrictions are blamed. If the Supreme Court upholds the abortion law in its entirety that number could fall to less than 10, all in major metropolitan areas.

“There will be a right in name as long as Roe is still on the books, but if there are no clinics, then what does that really mean in terms of the right to abortion if you can’t exercise the right?” asked Cary C. Franklin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “This case really puts that question front and center.”