The Texas SB8 ruling

[David Hume]

If I understand correctly, the ruling basically says that only the state executive officials directly charged to enforce the law could be sued to enjoin enforcement. This means that private citizens can still sue abortion clinics under SB8 for bounties. And if the state court judge rule in favor of the bounty hunters, abortion clinics can only keep appealing, until the law struck down as unconstitutional (while Roe still holds).

This means the majority of abortion clinics will likely remain closed, until the law struck down, since they probably want to avoid been involved in the litigations and associated expenses.

This also means states like California can pass similar laws to ban gun sales by allowing private citizens to sue for bounty. And until such laws struck down, a lot of gun shops make close.

I personally find this horrible, as it opens a new avenue for states to violate constitutional rights by authorizing bounty hunters, and avoid judicial review for a certain period of time.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I personally find this horrible, as it opens a new avenue for states to violate constitutional rights by authorizing bounty hunters, and avoid judicial review for a certain period of time.

The structure of SB8 would have been an existentially terrifying assault on the rule of law regardless of its subject matter, yes.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1469865185493983234

[Donerail]

Excited to see the logic the Court uses to allow sweeping pre-enforcement challenge to the new California law

[politicallefty]

This ruling is quite disturbing. If these five Justices can reach this result, things are going to get far worse. I think it's also clear at this point now that Roberts doesn't have control over this Court anymore.

[David Hume]

This ruling is quite disturbing. If these five Justices can reach this result, things are going to get far worse. I think it's also clear at this point now that Roberts doesn't have control over this Court anymore.

Actually, even liberal justices agree that judges and private person cannot be sued.

[politicallefty]

This ruling is quite disturbing. If these five Justices can reach this result, things are going to get far worse. I think it's also clear at this point now that Roberts doesn't have control over this Court anymore.

Actually, even liberal justices agree that judges and private person cannot be sued.

That's been true for a long time. However, if I read and understand this correctly, there were four votes in dissent (in the Roberts concurrence/dissent, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) that reasoned that the Texas AG and court clerks should be subject to suits. That would've been more than enough under Ex Parte Young and other precedents to allow a wider allowance of suits that would have the law enjoined immediately.

[David Hume]

This ruling is quite disturbing. If these five Justices can reach this result, things are going to get far worse. I think it's also clear at this point now that Roberts doesn't have control over this Court anymore.

Actually, even liberal justices agree that judges and private person cannot be sued.

That's been true for a long time. However, if I read and understand this correctly, there were four votes in dissent (in the Roberts concurrence/dissent, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) that reasoned that the Texas AG and court clerks should be subject to suits. That would've been more than enough under Ex Parte Young and other precedents to allow a wider allowance of suits that would have the law enjoined immediately.

How could suing AG enjoin the enforcement of this law?

Suing court clerks, may be. But that's a bad idea in its own right. Clerks are not judges, they just follow procedures. If a law is fully constitutional but someone just don't like it, can they sue the court clerks to block its enforcement? This would be harassments and deter clerks to carry out their duties.

[politicallefty]

This ruling is quite disturbing. If these five Justices can reach this result, things are going to get far worse. I think it's also clear at this point now that Roberts doesn't have control over this Court anymore.

Actually, even liberal justices agree that judges and private person cannot be sued.

That's been true for a long time. However, if I read and understand this correctly, there were four votes in dissent (in the Roberts concurrence/dissent, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) that reasoned that the Texas AG and court clerks should be subject to suits. That would've been more than enough under Ex Parte Young and other precedents to allow a wider allowance of suits that would have the law enjoined immediately.

How could suing AG enjoin the enforcement of this law?

Suing court clerks, may be. But that's a bad idea in its own right. Clerks are not judges, they just follow procedures. If a law is fully constitutional but someone just don't like it, can they sue the court clerks to block its enforcement? This would be harassments and deter clerks to carry out their duties.

This form of legislation needs to be stopped quickly or many other constitutional rights are going to be subject to these kinds of laws.

As to who should be sued, I agree entirely with what Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

I think this country is in a serious crisis if these laws are allowed to stand. This is effectively state nullification of constitutional rights. If that doesn't offend you to your core as someone who appreciates what we have in terms of the Constitution itself, it's probably not worth saving.

[David Hume]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1469865185493983234

I am actually surprised it takes so long and Newsom takes the lead. It's a great opportunity for blue state politicians to boost their national image.

[SInNYC]

I'm not a lawyer, but can this decision be used to negate Citizens United?

Any corporation who spends D dollars nationally on an ad can be sued by anybody for 2D, with .5D going to the suer and 1.5D going to the 'other' candidate.

...though the SC would probably twist itself into a pretzel making this illegal (if its possible).

[Person Man]

I'm not a lawyer, but can this decision be used to negate Citizens United?

Any corporation who spends D dollars nationally on an ad can be sued by anybody for 2D, with .5D going to the suer and 1.5D going to the 'other' candidate.

...though the SC would probably twist itself into a pretzel making this illegal (if its possible).

You could use this ruling to "loosen the libel laws", just like Trump wanted to do. Don't like the bias of the media? Give 'em the Sandmann treatment. They're not going to jail for exercising their Free Speech so  'em. All it would take is for a judge to find that  Defamation has changed because the Constitutional Protections that Defamation relies on for its limits have been changed.

[Skill and Chance]

There's a slippery slope here, but the most likely outcome is they just overrule Roe/Casey next summer,
 stating that the Constitution is silent on how states choose to regulate abortion (so SB8 can no longer be construed as violating anyone's constitutional rights).  Then, they take a blue state gun bounty case and find the law unconstitutional because it abridges the 2nd Amendment as written, but noting that state legislatures are free to use this enforcement structure for anything that doesn't involve an enumerated right.

[Person Man]

There's a slippery slope here, but the most likely outcome is they just overrule Roe/Casey next summer,
 stating that the Constitution is silent on how states choose to regulate abortion (so SB8 can no longer be construed as violating anyone's constitutional rights).  Then, they take a blue state gun bounty case and find the law unconstitutional because it abridges the 2nd Amendment as written, but noting that state legislatures are free to use this enforcement structure for anything that doesn't involve an enumerated right.

Of course, to many people, it would be the same thing as them saying "rights are only rights when we say they are rights" because some people don't even agree on what the 1st or 2nd Amendments actually say. This would make SCOTUS a super-legislature.