Thread by @chrisgeidner

One or more #SCOTUS opinions coming at 10a.

Breaking: The Supreme Court allows abortion providers' challenge to Texas #SB8 to proceed, limited to challenges to individuals responsible for medical licensing. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

Justice Thomas would dismiss the case altogether.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissents in part, concluding that "the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system ... is at stake."

The US challenge to #SB8 is pushed back to the 5th Circuit, which had put an underlying injunction against SB 8 on hold, with no ruling from the justices.

In the abortion providers' case, Justice Sotomayor also writes, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part and joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, stating that "the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8's model for nullifying federal
rights."

In short, the Supreme Court's conservative majority allowed a law that flagrantly ignores Supreme Court precedent to go into effect and remain in effect for the past 9 weeks, and even now they're only providing the possibility of unclear and limited relief going forward.

OK. I'm back and reading through Today's #SB8 #SCOTUS rulings in more depth and will tweet thoughts here.

From Gorsuch's first footnote, it's pretty clear that the majority is going to let Texas do whatever it wants, precedent be damned. (Save this thought for later!)

Beside the point, but I really hate "Federal" being capitalized here.

It's always interesting to me when and how justices use "we had a short period of time to consider this." Almost always feels like an excuse.

Where we're at today is a creation of Texas, the 5th Circuit, & SCOTUS's own making — by passing this law, taking up the appeal and putting everything (except the law itself) on hold, & then by taking months at SCOTUS — and yet Gorsuch still writes like his hands are tied.

Unlike the majority's disinterest in addressing the fact that they are allowing a flagrantly unconstitutional law to remain in effect, Gorsuch writes passionately (and for several pages) about the need to protect Ex parte Young.

Whenever the Supreme Court throws up its hands, acting like it can't do something to address an issue, that is a choice. The Supreme Court, if it wished to do so, could craft a ruling to protect the constitutional right to an abortion against SB 8. It chose not to do so.

Compare Gorsuch's "Troubling, too ..." way of looking at what to do with Ex parte Young with his "the ultimate merits question" isn't before us. The whole case is about whether a state can ignore Supreme Court precedent, yet the majority is fine allowing that law to be in effect.

Detour: #SCOTUS also just granted four new cases on three issues.