Basic in constitutional law and civil procedure is the question of standing and this law allows someone who does not have any injury in fact to bring a lawsuit which makes it harder for the DOJ to sue to invalidate the law. Here a low life disbarred attorney is in effect the perfect plaintiff to sue in that he clearly has no standing and is a great plaintiff to show how stupid the law is
Republican lawmakers’ move to ban nearly all abortions in Texas was accomplished through a huge, unprecedented expansion of who can bring a lawsuit against someone else: Under the law, anyone can sue anyone who performs, aids or intends to aid in an abortion — regardless of whether they have a personal stake in the abortion performed.
“It’s wide open,” said David Coale, an appellate lawyer in Texas. “That is a radical expansion of the concept of standing.”
The expansion has far-reaching legal implications, legal experts say, by challenging the very notion of what a court is for and emboldening civilians to enforce law, a duty traditionally left to the government. It’s also a reversal by Texas Republicans on tort law, in which they have typically sought to limit the ability to sue, not expand it.
Legal experts also told The Texas Tribune that the measure is part of an emerging trend in Republican-dominated governments that find it difficult to constitutionally prohibit cultural grievances. Instead, they empower civilians to sue for civil remedies.
Jon Michaels, a professor at UCLA Law, points to Tennessee, where students, teachers and employees of public schools can sue schools if they share a bathroom with a transgender person, as well as Florida, where student athletes can sue their school if it allows a transgender athlete to play.
“It’s a way of back-dooring and winking while constitutional violations are occurring,” Michaels said. “It is compromising democracy."
For those who do not understand how twitter works, he is a link to the article cited
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-republican-abortion-civil-lawsuits/
The best way to attack the premise of this law is to have a low life disbarred out of state attorney being the plaintiff. Under the normal rules of civil procedure, this asshole disbarred attorney does not have standing and to reward such a "person" exposed the essential stupidity of the premise of this law that standing is not necessary to bring a lawsuit
I note that second lawsuit is filed by a pro-choice plaintiff who also want to contest the constitutionality of this stupid law
= new reply since forum marked as read
