The Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested that a federal judge impose an injunction on the enforcement of an abortion law in Texas until a lawsuit from the federal government that is challenging the statute is resolved.
The Justice Department issued the request Tuesday “to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas and the sovereign interest of the United States,” the department wrote in its legal filing to Judge Robert L. Pitman of the Western District of Texas, who is also overseeing the lawsuit.
The DOJ alleged in its brief that the Texas law, also known as S.B. 8, is “an unprecedented scheme” meant to avoid judicial review by placing the onus of enforcement on individuals rather than the state itself.
“This attempt to shield a plainly unconstitutional law from review cannot stand,” the DOJ wrote. “The United States seeks a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 8.”
The request for injunction comes one week after the DOJ filed a lawsuit seeking to question the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.
“It is settled constitutional law that ‘a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,'” the lawsuit states. “But Texas has done just that.”
Pitman, who was nominated to his current judicial post by former President Barack Obama, may honor the request by the Justice Department. However, the state of Texas could appeal any injunction he imposes to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, considered to be the most conservative circuit court in the country. If this happens, it is likely to be overturned.
The Texas law, which went into effect on September 1, makes it illegal for any person to obtain an abortion after their sixth week of pregnancy. However, rather than having the state enforce the law, the statute allows individuals to sue others, including clinicians and providers, who knowingly help another person to obtain abortion services for sums of up to $10,000.
Because of this quirk in the law, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, with the conservative majority ruling that it first needed an aggrieved party filing a contention to it. All three liberal bloc members of the Court, joined by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented.
“The Court’s order is stunning,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy