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 ...
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).
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* Local prosecutors are enjoined from enforcing pre-Roe abortion bans (even though, and b/c, they have already been repealed by implication)
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
Breaking: #SCOTUS will not stop Florida from carrying out its first execution since the summer of 2019. Tomorrow, Florida is scheduled to kill Donald Dillbeck. There were no noted dissents.
Notably, Dillbeck was sentenced to death after a murder conviction — but only an 8-4 death sentence recommendation. Dillbeck was, in part, asking #SCOTUS to consider and rule on whether a unanimous jury is required in the penalty phase to impose the death sentence.
As if we don’t have enough going on this week already, we will be getting one or more opinions from the Supreme Court in a few minutes, at 10a. The opinion announcement audio, unlike arguments, will not be livestreamed. #SCOTUS
The first opinion, by Barrett, is in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, a bankruptcy case. The decision is unanimous, but Sotomayor concurred, joined by Jackson. supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
Only people intentionally seeking to subvert a clear understanding of journalism — and, specifically, the power of The New York Times when it comes to agenda-setting and narrative-changing — would dismiss legitimate questions about coverage by saying they're not activists.
The letter I signed was not asking for the journalists to be activists. It is asking for better, more accurate, more responsible journalism. It is seeking journalism that contextualizes coverage, both within stories and in coverage decisions.
Many unsurprising names, some disappointing names, some disappointing-but-unsurprising names, in a letter that builds off of the dismissive response of Joe Kahn.
#SCOTUS is back today. We’ll be getting orders from last Friday’s conference in 15 minutes at 9:30a ET, followed at 10a ET by oral arguments in the big Section 230 internet algorithm case, Gonzalez v. Google.