Not a ruling on the merits. The #Texas #abortion providers had sought an injunction in the district court. The district court was set to hold a hearing on their request but the 5th circuit suspended the hearing until it could decide whether to hear an appeal on procedural issues.
The providers filed an emergency application with #SCOTUS requesting an injunction until these issues are resolved. The Court 5-4 (the 3 liberals + the chief dissenting) declined to intervene. So there's been no ruling on #SB8 one way or the other, but...
...the law can go into effect for now. Given the significant liabilities imposed on abortion providers, many have already begun suspending services in #Texas, even as we wait for an ultimate determine of the law's legality (it is unconstitutional under current Court doctrine)
The majority opinion stresses that its declining to intervene at this stage because plaintiffs (abortion providers) have failed to show that defendants will seek to enforce the law against them...which is a procedural gimmick #Texas designed to make it hard to enjoin the law.
In short, rather than state officials seeking to enforce the state law, #Texas barred state officials from implementing the law and "deputized" private citizen to sue abortion providers (or anyone who provides support for an abortion after 6 weeks). The result is that it is...
...not at all clear who plaintiffs should be suing to enjoin enforcement of #SB8. And because plaintiffs can't show these particular defendants are imminently set to go after the abortion providers, the majority says no relief at this stage.
But this allows #Texas to have the law go into effect, because abortion providers, fearing liability, are complying with #SB8 until they can get an ultimate merits ruling showing the law is unconstitutional (under Roe, Planned Parenthood, June medical, etc.)
Not to mention the Article III standing issues of having private citizens be the ones to bring suit against the providers.
The chief justice, in dissent, says the statutory scheme is unprecedented and says he would preclude enforcement of the law until the district and appellate court can resolve these weird procedural issues to preserve the status quo in the interim.
Roberts' opinion is joined by Breyer and Kagan. Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all write separately as well. Here's a taste of Kagan 
Addendum: I mentioned earlier in the thread that private citizens would seem to lack Art. III standing if they brought suit under #SB8. But that would only preclude suit in federal courts. They could still go after abortion providers in state courts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
