The Biden Justice Department wants the Federal Court of Appeals to reinstate a lower court’s ruling that barred a Texas abortion ban after a fetal heartbeat was detected.
In a lawsuit filed Monday, the Justice Department told U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that the Texas ban was created to illegally thwart judicial review in order to enforce it on private citizens rather than the state. To be set and try to create a post. Implementation review ineffective
“By violating the Constitution and frustrating the judicial review, Texas has not only attacked the rights of its citizens. Affects.
The New Orleans Court of Appeals over the weekend granted Texas a request to overturn an October 6 order by U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman to temporarily suspend the abortion ban.
Obama-appointed Judge Putman sided with the federal government, arguing that the law contradicted the Supreme Court’s precedent of establishing the national right to abortion.
A three-judge panel that will examine the dispute between Texas and the federal government includes Trump-appointed Judge James Ho. Appointment of Catherine Haynes, Bush and Judge Carl Stewart, Clinton.
Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, prohibits abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually between six and eight weeks of gestation.
The Justice Department argues that the decades-long Supreme Court precedent gives women the right to have an abortion unless the fetus is viable, which is usually between 24 and 28 weeks.
The law went into effect on September 1, and the Supreme Court ruled the next day that he should be released, pending legal action.
Since then, the Justice Department has claimed that “some Texans have traveled hundreds of miles to obtain abortions and provided backlogs for care in other states.”
Under the law, state officials do not enforce a ban on abortion, but private citizens can sue anyone who either has an abortion or help a woman have an abortion after the fetal heartbeat is detected. does.
The SB8 also states that if a judge temporarily withholds the law, providers may still be subject to violation cases that precede a permanent decision.
Texas says the ban does not disappoint the judicial review because defendants can argue that law enforcement is unconstitutional.
However, the Justice Department claims that the constitutional defense will be limited because the law has “cooled the providers so well that very little action will be taken.”
The department also said the defense could be ineffective because the law intends to limit the outcome of a successful constitutional argument.
“This is a mirage of judicial review,” the department said.
The Justice Department argues that Texas is defending its law by emphasizing state sovereignty, but that exemption does not protect the state from the federal government’s authority to prosecute states on unconstitutional laws.
The department said Texas’ attempt to avoid judicial review is “an open threat to the supremacy of the federal constitution” and that “if the scheme is legitimate, no constitutional right is protected from sabotage by such state approval.”
The Justice Department urged the court to reinstate the restraining order and refuse any further action to uphold the law while the proceedings continue.
“Since the unconstitutional status of the SB8 is clear, and because Texas ‘sovereignty exemption is not an obstacle to this suit, it is unlikely to succeed on Texas’ merits,” the department said. In addition, Texas will not suffer any identifiable harm if its unconstitutional law is enforced while the appeal is pending. In fact, if Texas is to be believed, the state has no legal obligation.
Texas has until Thursday afternoon to respond to a Justice Department briefing.