#SCOTUS issues ruling in Texas Heartbeat Act cases: Abortion clinics' claim may proceed against some defendants but not state judge, clerk, or AG.
Gorsuch opinion for majority. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf… Chief files opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, joined b libs. Sotomayor does likewise, joined by Breyer and Kagan. DOJ case is dismissed.
Gorsuch majority opinion: 1. Court clerk and state judge enjoy sovereign immunity. Also, no Article III "case or controversy" with respect to them. 2. State AG should be dismissed. He has no enforcement authority. 1/
3. Case may proceed against licensing officials. Thomas doesn't join this part. Chief and libs concur in judgment on this.
4. Private defendant should be dismissed. 2/
4. Private defendant should be dismissed. 2/
More Gorsuch majority: Any individual sued under Heartbeat Act "may raise state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense without limitation," irrespective what state statute says. [Yep.] Other pre-enforcement actions are also possible. [Yep.] 3/
Justice Thomas: Case should not proceed against any of the defendants. None has enforcement role. Nor is there imminent threat of enforcement.
Chief dissent (in most part), joined by libs: State AG and court clerk are also proper defendants. "It is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake." Gross miscitation of Marbury v. Madison, as power of judicial review is not judicial supremacy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
