[ad_1]
The request, while not unexpected, adds to uncertainty in Texas regarding access to the proceedings. This lawsuit – which was brought by the US Department of Justice – is one of many fronts where the legal war is waged over the ban. The battle over Wednesday’s order blocking the law is likely to end in the Supreme Court.
Paxton is asking the appeals court to administratively stay this order as soon as possible, and that by Tuesday, it urgently stay the order while the appeal is considered.
The next morning of the district court order, issued by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, some clinics in Texas resumed aborting patients who were over six weeks pregnant. They do so with some legal risk, as Texas law allows enforcement actions for abortions performed while a court order blocking the law is in effect, if the court order is subsequently overturned. by a higher court.
Rather than tasking government officials with enforcing the ban, through criminal or administrative penalties, the law directs private citizens to take legal action against caregivers or anyone who assists a woman in obtaining a abortion after detection of fetal heart activity – a point usually around six weeks after the onset of pregnancy, but often before a woman knows she is pregnant.
To circumvent this unusual enforcement mechanism, Pitman’s order prohibited state court officials, including judges, from taking legal action against clinics and others accused of violating the law. ‘prohibition.
Texas, in its Friday request with the 5th Circuit, said Pitman’s order violated precedent in how it targeted state courts, as well as individuals seeking legal action under of the ban on abortion.
“There is no precedent for the district court injunction; it grossly and irreparably interferes with the operations of the state court of Texas,” the Texas wrote in the filing. “It also places state courts and their employees under imminent threat of contempt based on the actions of third parties they cannot control.”
Until Pitman’s order on Wednesday, the design of the ban’s enforcement mechanism had succeeded in thwarting other legal attempts – by clinics and others – to enforce the law.
“Fully aware that to deny its citizens this right through direct state action would be patently unconstitutional, the state has put in place an unprecedented and transparent legislative regime to do just that,” Pitman wrote on Wednesday.
When the clinics, in their own lawsuit challenging the ban, had previously asked the 5th Circuit to block the law, the appeals court refused, as did the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Since the entry into force of SB 8, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in a way that is constitutionally protected,” Pitman said. “It is up to them to decide whether other courts find a way to avoid this conclusion; this Court will not one more day sanction this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
[ad_2]
Source link