In her own blistering dissent, Sotomayor called the opinion “stunning,” and accused the five conservative justices of burying their “heads in the sand” while silently acquiescing “in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.” In a separate opinion by Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc also stressed that the court’s previous rulings on abortion not only established its constitutionality, but that the state’s delegation of that enforcement to private individuals threatened to invade a constitutional right sufficient to threaten imminent harm, and therefore support a grant of emergency relief. In denying the plaintiffs’ application for relief, the five conservative justices commented, “his order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts,” indicating that the litigation on the Texas heartbeat law might very well be far from over.įor their part, the four dissenting justices-Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer-focused instead on how the law appeared to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing a new abortion regime and would have granted relief to give the courts time to consider whether a law could shield a state from responsibility for its laws in the way the Texas heartbeat law had. The Texas abortionists, therefore, couldn’t prove that they would be irreparably injured absent a stay. The text of the law itself prevented suit against the named defendant judge, and the private defendant (a Texas pro-life activist) submitted an affidavit that he had no present intention of pursuing an enforcement action. The Supreme Court recognized that the law implicated serious constitutional questions, but that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their procedural burdens and were unable to prove that an injury was imminent. Therefore, the only way for an abortion provider to claim a defense against application of the law is to wait for a private actor to sue, and then raise their contrary argument that the law itself is unconstitutional. Instead, private citizens may bring a civil enforcement action against someone who performs an abortion in violation of the law or assists someone in obtaining an illegal abortion. Specifically, state officials may not enforce the law and are granted sovereign immunity against anyone seeking to bring suit on the grounds that the bill is contrary to constitutional law. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence.īut the Texas Heartbeat Act takes a novel approach. These so-called heartbeat bills have passed in various states in recent years, but all have been blocked by courts that have deemed them to run afoul of precedent established by Roe v.

It also prohibits individuals from assisting a person in obtaining an illegal abortion. The Texas law prohibits most abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected via ultrasound, which is at roughly six weeks gestation. This litigation evokes a core principle: The law must protect innocent human lives, including those who are not yet born, and support women facing a challenging or unplanned pregnancy. Litigation will undoubtedly continue in the days and weeks to come. As a result, most abortion activity in Texas has come to a halt. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief requested by Texas abortion providers. Accordingly, policymakers are working across the country to enact policies that reflect this consensus, rooted in the understanding that life is our most basic human freedom and should be protected in public policy.Ī recently enacted Texas law that restricts most abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected went into effect on Wednesday after the U.S. Americans in many states support significant restrictions on abortion.

Texas heartbeat abortion law