Breaking: US District Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law and has barred defendant prosecutors from enforcing them.
More to come ...
More to come ...
It is a mixed ruling. Paxton was dismissed, and more recent laws (H.B. 1280 and S.B. 8) were not enjoined.
This all comes in a case about discussing, funding, and supporting out-of-state abortions (Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton).
The 52-page ruling: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This all comes in a case about discussing, funding, and supporting out-of-state abortions (Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton).
The 52-page ruling: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
It's a complicated case with a complicated ruling, but Pitman does an excellent job of summarizing the ruling up top. I'd encourage you to read it.
Here is Pitman's description of why this case was brought. As I said above, it's about discussing and funding abortions and helping people to obtain out-of-state abortions — and fears of in-state prosecution for those actions.
While Paxton was dismissed from the suit, it's important to see why: Pitman ruled that Paxton had no enforcement authority under the pre-Roe laws or SB8 and that HB1280 does not even "arguably" allow prosecutions related to out-of-state abortions.
As to HB1280 (Texas's so-called "trigger law") specifically, Pitman notes that, while politicians including Paxton have made threats about extra-territorial enforcement, that's not what the law says. (Pp. 28-29.)
Note that Pitman drops a "what if they try anyway" footnote, saying, more or less, "come back if they try it."
So, what happened?
* Paxton is dismissed (b/c he can't enforce pre-Roe bans or SB8, and HB1280 doesn't apply to abortions out of Texas)
* Local prosecutors are enjoined from enforcing pre-Roe abortion bans (even though, and b/c, they have already been repealed by implication)
* Paxton is dismissed (b/c he can't enforce pre-Roe bans or SB8, and HB1280 doesn't apply to abortions out of Texas)
* Local prosecutors are enjoined from enforcing pre-Roe abortion bans (even though, and b/c, they have already been repealed by implication)
This does not change abortion rights on the ground in Texas, but it does provide a ruling that backs those in Texas who are supporting people seeking out-of-state abortions — with an injunction against prosecutors using pre-Roe bans and a strong court ruling on HB1280's limits.
For more of my work and to support my up-to-the-minute legal reporting, subscribe to @lawdorknews now: lawdork.com
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
![The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court's stay order "divest[s]" the district court "order of enforceability"). Even if we accepted respondents' characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to "coerce" the Government into "compliance" and would be unenforceable given our stay o...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gu9jERBWYAAyH07.png)
