By a 2–1 vote, the 5th Circuit certifies a question of state law to the Texas Supreme Court in the S.B. 8 case, keeping abortion clinics shuttered.

It seems increasingly likely that the lower courts will run down the clock until SCOTUS overturns Roe. documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
The Supreme Court held that the federal lawsuit against S.B. 8 could proceed against "Texas licensing officials" who ostensibly enforce abortion restrictions.

Now the 5th Circuit has asked the Texas Supreme Court to decide whether SCOTUS was correct as a matter of state law.
In dissent, Judge Higginson accuses the 5th Circuit of "impeding relief ordered by the Supreme Court."

He quotes J. Skelly Wright’s observation that in the 1950s, segregationist judges contravened the Supreme Court's civil rights decisions through "delays" and "subterfuge."
Anyway, the panel's Republican majority is optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon overrule Roe v. Wade and is attempting to run down the clock on this litigation, since Texas' "trigger law" will automatically ban abortion once that happens.
It is pretty wild that eight justices of the Supreme Court ruled that the federal lawsuit against S.B. 8 could move forward—and the 5th Circuit just said "nah, we don't think so." Higginson's analogy to segregationist judges who defied SCOTUS in the 1950s is spot on.
Whole Woman's Health previously filed a mandamus petition asking the Supreme Court to force the 5th Circuit to send the case back down to the district court so it could provide relief. That petition remains pending before SCOTUS. documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
Finally, an administrative item: Please snitch-tag anyone who tweeted about tonight's 5th Circuit order without linking to the decision so I can scream at them.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern 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 @mjs_DC

Jan 18,
I missed this in December: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, signed a letter to Kevin McCarthy accusing the Jan. 6 committee of engaging in "political harassment," "demagoguery," and "overtly partisan political persecution." conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-l… Image
The letter signed by Ginni Thomas urges McCarthy to revoke Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's membership in the GOP conference, claiming that both representatives are trying "to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans." conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-l…
Notably, the letter signed by Ginni Thomas claims that the Jan. 6 committee's subpoenas have no "valid legislative end."

Trump v. Thompson—which is before the Supreme Court *right now*—asks the justices to decide ... whether these subpoenas have a valid legislative end.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 14,
Awful, awful grant. This case gives SCOTUS a back door to effectively overturn Miranda by holding that there is no constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings. A truly bad omen.
This grant, too, is profoundly disturbing. The coach and his attorneys have brazenly lied about the facts of the case to tee up Supreme Court vehicle that will legalize a great deal of prayer in public schools. Looks like the justices took the bait.
Whatever you think about school prayer, this grant is bad news for anyone who thinks that lawyers should not lie to courts.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 14,
Days after invalidating Ohio's gerrymandering legislative maps, the Ohio Supreme Court strikes down the state's gerrymandered congressional maps, which gave Republicans a 12–3 advantage. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
A lot to unpack here but I'm fascinated by this exchange over the dissenters' decision to issue a jointly authored opinion. They cite yesterday's joint dissent by SCOTUS' three liberals in the COVID mandate case. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
I just want to reiterate how demented the Republican dissenters' position is in these cases ... The people of Ohio overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment restricting partisan gerrymandering and the dissenters say the Ohio Supreme Court can't enforce it. Lunacy.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 13,
BREAKING: The Supreme Court *blocks* Biden's vaccinate-or-test employer mandate by a 6–3 vote but *upholds* Biden's vaccine mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote. I will post the opinion in a moment.
Here is the opinion blocking Biden's vaccinate-or-test employer mandate by a 6–3 vote: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

Here is the opinion upholding Biden's vaccinate mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
In the decision blocking Biden's COVID employer mandate, the liberal justices issue a very rare joint dissent, authored by all three together.

"When we are wise, we know enough to defer on matters like this one. ... Today, we are not wise." supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Read 8 tweets
Jan 13,
I'm not even going to link because it's too depressing but Federalist Society law professors are already feverishly crafting theories about how courts should eviscerate or invalidate this bill if it somehow passed. The Senate is a problem. The courts are a bigger problem.
It's fun/horrific to imagine the legal academy's reaction to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if today's Federalist Society infrastructure existed back then. You would have endless blog posts explaining why CoNgReSs JuSt CaN't EnD jIm CrOw couched in deviously neutral legalese.
And if today's pipeline from FedSoc to the federal judiciary existed in 1965, a lone federal judge would have issued a nationwide injunction against the entire Voting Rights Act, and we'd get Volokh Conspiracy posts about how anyone who disagreed was a #resistance hack.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 13,
The Supreme Court's first and only opinion of the day is in a civil service pension case, Babcock v. Kijakazi. No vaccine decisions. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Babcock is an 8–1 decision by Barrett. Only Gorsuch dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Gorsuch expresses "trepidation" about being "the only dissenter on this narrow question of statutory
interpretation."

"I would not ... curtail servicemembers’ Social Security benefits based primarily on implications extracted from other, separate 'bookkeeping' statutes."
Read 4 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(