The Court's decision allowing the Texas law to go into effect claims it is not ruling on the merits, because it's unclear whether any lawsuits will be brought to prevent abortion, etc. This is just weird. Everyone knows they will be brought, that's why the clinics have stopped 1/
providing abortions. Justice Sotomayor calls it exactly right when she says it is the Ct burying its head in the sand. Chief Justice Roberts tellingly sides against Texas. And if this is the rationale, that Texas by enabling only private lawsuits 2/
means that cts are powerless because it's unclear whether the law will ever be enforced by private parties, that's dangerous for anyone who cares about constl rights. Take guns. States like NY can now create "private lawsuits" against people who carry firearms for any reason 3/
and say "oh it's not clear it'll ever be enforced, so cts you are powerless to do anything." The list of possible ways this silliness can be used to deny people their constl rights is endless. This is a low, low moment. END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Neal Katyal

Neal Katyal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @neal_katyal

9 Sep
AG Garland announcing lawsuit against Texas by the federal govt. Bravo. This is the fed govt standing up for our Constitution. He calls the Texas law "clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent."
He is zeroing in on the "vigilante" provision, explaining just how destructive to the rule of law it is. And he's explaining how much the abortion restrictions destroy women's constitutional rights. It's an excellent statement so far.
If you want to learn more about the Supreme Court, I'm going to teach a 4 week short course (90 mins/week) for beginners. You can sign up here: getchapter.app/@neal/supreme
Read 4 tweets
8 Sep
1/ Excited to announce a new, short digital learning experience on the Highest Court in the land. Launching today w/ @chapter_HQ! My 1st “chapter” includes curated content, history, in-depth discussion + Q&A about the history and decisions of the Sup Ct.
getchapter.app/@neal/supreme
2/ I’ll be covering the Sup. Court, including a review of some milestone cases. Weekly meetings begin Nov 1, for 4 weeks. I’ve handpicked all the content, and you can expect about 90 mins/week total. Interactions are asynchronous, allowing me to answer more questions.
3/ It's a crash course, designed to teach folks what they need to know about the S Ct. And you don't even need to be in the US-I'm really trying to give the knowledge to everyone about our legal system and how the big cases get argued and decided. I’d love for you to join me!
Read 7 tweets
2 Sep
Thank you so much Medhi. I respect you and your question greatly. Here’s my perspective on the Texas decision and btw Gorsuch also wrote the Bostock decision so let’s try to be better than creating simple click-bait “gotcha” narratives around incredibly complex legal issues:
1. I've been warning in every forum I can that since Justice Barrett's confirmation, Roe would be overruled, and that's why I've been imploring Congress to act. Conservatives have made overruling Roe a project for 48 years
2.When I wrote that re Gorsuch, Trump had won the presidency and Republicans had the Senate. Republicans were going to confirm someone, and among the folks on Trump's list, my point was that he was better than the others on that list.
Read 11 tweets
24 Mar
So pleased to report that the 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, has just voted to approve Hawaii's gun control law, which restricts the open carrying of firearms. The opinion was written by Judge Bybee. I argued the case for the State of Hawaii back in September w/an incredible team
The opinion is 215 pages long. I'll post it as soon as we can.
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
Now this defense is getting stupider (which I didn't think was possible before now). Trump lawyer is literally arguing that the 1/6 insurrection were caused by Portland/BLM/media
The great thing is that regardless of the outcome of the vote today, this defense will be the defense of Trump that exists in the historical record.

To use the precise legal term, this defense sucks. No historian will look at this and be able to find any exculpation. Fitting.
I've taught at @GeorgetownLaw for more than 20 years. I'm pretty sure I've never had a 1st year student who'd do a worse job than this Trump lawyer. It's not a defense, it's a culture war screed. Given that 1 of the most impt audiences here is the eye of history, it's a disaster.
Read 8 tweets
12 Feb
This defense of Trump is like the upside down world.
Good lawyers refrain from absurd statements, understanding this undermines one’s credibility. This person is refraining from any non-absurd statements.
Phew. I was worried we’d go 10 minutes before hearing #BothSides.
Read 41 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(