On 2/26/2023 8:57 PM, John Levine wrote:
Texas passed a law that allowed private citizens to snitch on
abortion providers if the fetus was older than 12 weeks and collect
$10,000 or something like that if successful.
That law was challenged in the supreme court. has the court ruled
on that yet?
Yes. They upheld it. Also, the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization effectively overturned Roe v. Wade and left states to
regulate abortion pretty much as they pleased.
SCOTUS also threw the concept of "standing" out the window when they
upheld Texas's "abortion snitch" law. The old rule (promulgated by
Justice Scalia) was that you had to have something at stake -- something
you would gain if you won or lose if you didn't.
I should note that anybody who tries to sue people in other states for "assisting an abortion" by providing funds to travel out of state would
run into the problem of jurisdiction. As a general rule, Texas state
courts won't have jurisdiction over somebody in another state -- as long
as they stay out of Texas.
Even if a Texas court ruled that they had jurisdiction over somebody
like that, the winner would have to go to the other person's state
courts to seize their assets or whatever. This is normally a slam-dunk
-- you present your certified judgment, and the other state's court
authorizes you to enforce it. But with something as heavily politicized
as abortion, I suspect that courts in, e.g., California, would tell you
to get lost.
Which would run into the "Full faith and credit" clause (Article IV,
section 1). Maybe SCOTUS would weigh in on that, but it might result in something similar to what Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said (but
probably didn't) about the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832): "John
Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it."
Because the federal courts do not have any enforcement mechanism. They
have to ask the US Marshall's Service (part of the DoJ) to enforce their decisions. I suspect that Biden (for instance) would be reluctant to
tell the USMS to enforce something like that.
This week in a related case a district court ruled that funds that pay
for women to travel to other states to get abortions cannot be
criminally charged.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/24/texas-abortion-funds-ruling/
Yes, because there is an "inherent right" to travel(*). I think it comes
from the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, but
it might be what the Supreme Court calls a "liberty interest".
(*) Not necessarily to travel by any particular means. You do not have a
right to drive if you cannot pass the driving test. You do not have a
right to get on an airliner unless (1) you have a ticket, and (2) you
have been screened for banned weapons. But you can walk.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)