Supreme Court denies request to move Texas abortion case to district court

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/01/20/Supreme-Court-Texas-abortion/5131642715515/

Jan. 20 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court denied on Thursday abortion providers' latest request to intervene in the ongoing legal challenge against Texas' restrictive abortion law, cutting off one of the few remaining paths to a speedy victory for abortion providers.

The case is currently before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sent the case to the Texas Supreme Court. That is expected to add months to the legal proceedings.

Abortion providers were hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would direct the 5th Circuit to send the case to federal district court, where a judge previously blocked the law.

Abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy have been banned in Texas since Sept. 1. The law has a unique enforcement mechanism that allows private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone who "aids and abets" in a prohibited abortion, making it extremely difficult to challenge in court.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out most of the arguments against the law, but allowed a narrow challenge to proceed against medical licensing officials. It is that narrow challenge that abortion providers were hoping would be allowed to play out in district court.

"Texas wagered that this Court did not mean what little it said...or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissent. "That bet has paid off."

*the end*

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Irin Carmon
@irin
Sotomayor: "Today, for the fourth time, this Court
declines to protect pregnant Texans from egregious violations of their constitutional rights." https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf#page=3…
2:04 PM · Jan 20, 2022

Sotomayor's dissent (she's all out of fucks to give)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf#page=3

[Alexander Of Assyria]

1. Outrageous decision that only makes sense because the Dixieland District Court of Appeals

and the Confederate Texas Supreme Court do NOT want the case to get to the District Court where EVIDENCE will be heard and his house of legal cards setup by the enraptured Catholics and Evangelicals on SCOTUS tumbles under the weight of its own stupidity and fake logic in a trial court.

Trial courts must be avoided at all cost. Keep it all sealed tight in appellate courts who hear no evidence.

So delay is the goal….even if precedents of appellate procedure intact for a hundred years are tossed like yesterdays salad.

All well intentioned ofc, cause all women are Handmaidens. What century is this, again? M confused.

After all,
“[w]hatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case; and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error appar- ent; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.” Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492 (1838).

Instead, the Court of Appeals ignored our judgment. It kept the case and certified questions about the licensing- official defendants to the Texas Supreme Court. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 2022 WL 142193, ___ F. 4th

…..

The Court of Appeal is in contempt of a SCOTUS ruling, an 8-1 ruling. And same SCOTUS is now ok with the plain contempt of its own order, 6-3…Wow.

[budkin]

2. Roe is already dead.

Just waiting for the official decision in June. The silver lining is that it could reverse our fortunes in the midterms.

[CousinIT]

3. Supreme Court continues to uphold reproductive slavery.

There. I fixed it.

[Tatertot]

4. It completely baffles me

How the Supreme Court or any inferior court can permit this law to remain in force in violation of Supreme Court precedent still in effect. They are acting as if there is no precedent in existence while they argue the merits of the enforcement provisions Disgraceful.