Press "Enter" to skip to content

Abortion: Justice Department sues Texas over six-week abortion ban

Announcing the lawsuit at a information convention in Washington, Attorney General Merrick Garland stated the Texas legislation’s “unprecedented” design seeks “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible.”

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent” Garland stated.

The Texas legislation was designed particularly with the aim of creating it harder for clinics to acquire federal court docket orders blocking enforcement of the legislation. Instead of making felony penalties for abortions carried out after a fetal heartbeat is detected, the Texas Legislature has tasked non-public residents with implementing the legislation by bringing non-public litigation in opposition to clinics — and anybody else who assists a girl in acquiring an abortion after six weeks.

Since the legislation went into impact, clinics throughout Texas have stopped providing abortions after six weeks, or have shuttered altogether.

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Garland stated, warning that Texas’ method may grow to be a mannequin for different states in addition to other forms of assault on different constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court docket in Austin, alleged that the Texas legislation is unconstitutional as a result of it conflicts with “the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government.”

“The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review,” the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department is in search of a declaratory judgment declaring the Texas abortion ban invalid, in addition to a “preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Texas — including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties” who would implement the abortion ban.

DOJ was stunned by Supreme Court’s actions

The US Supreme Court final week declined a request by clinics to dam the legislation from going into impact.

In an unsigned order, the court docket’s majority wrote that whereas the clinics had raised “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law,” they’d not met a burden that might permit the court docket to dam it presently as a result of “complex” and “novel” procedural questions.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to cease the legislation from going into impact caught Justice Department officers abruptly, in line with a DOJ official, since each different related restrictive legislation had been blocked.

Dozens of legal professionals spent the previous week engaged on one of the simplest ways to attempt to problem the legislation instantly. They decided utilizing the federal packages that might be disrupted by the ban introduced one of the simplest ways to determine standing and to attempt to preempt the legislation.

Thursday, Garland stated the Texas legislation infringed upon the actions of Labor Department, Defense Department and different federal companies. Specifically, DOJ stated within the lawsuit, the Texas legislation “exposes federal personnel and grantees to liability for carrying out their federal obligations to provide access to abortion-related services to persons” within the federal authorities’s care.

The DOJ additionally argued within the submitting that the federal government has the appropriate to deliver the go well with in opposition to the state as a result of the the US might “vindicate its interest” when a state legislation “flagrantly infringes the constitutional rights of the public at large.”

The “United States therefore may sue a State to vindicate the rights of individuals when a state infringes on rights protected by the Constitution.” It additionally cited the so-called “Take Care” Clause of the Constitution, which says that the President has the responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

What the Supreme Court's order means for the future of Roe v. Wade

Reproductive rights group which have already introduced their very own federal court docket problem to the Texas legislation, solely to see that lawsuit stalled by the procedural difficulties the ban presents, cheered the Biden administration’s actions. Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, referred to as the brand new lawsuit, “welcome news,” and Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, deemed the DOJ’s involvement a “gamechanger.”

Earlier, Texas Right to Life, the anti-abortion group that led the cost in getting the Texas legislation handed, scoffed on the information that the Department was taking motion. Its Vice President Elizabeth Graham stated Biden was a “puppet of the radical abortion agenda, and his DOJ will quickly find that they do not have jurisdiction to stop the Texas Heartbeat Act.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s workplace pledged to defend the legislation and referred to as the DOJ lawsuit a distraction for the White House.

“The most precious freedom is life itself. Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion,” Abbott press secretary Renae Eze stated in a press release. “Unfortunately, President Biden and his administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn.”

Garland on Monday had additionally pledged to guard abortion clinics in Texas by implementing a federal legislation that prohibits making threats in opposition to sufferers in search of reproductive well being companies and obstructing clinic entrances.

This story has been up to date with further particulars.

CNN’s Shawna Mizelle and Christina Carrega contributed to this report.

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    %d bloggers like this: