There's no complaint available yet. This is all the info pacer provides so far (minus the DOJ person's email address).pic.twitter.com/zE6h9AW61s
![](https://web.archive.org./web/20210913205200im_/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-3WB6oXMAc8xas.png)
Ви можете вказувати своє місцезнаходження у твітах, наприклад місто, у якому ви перебуваєте, або точні координати, в браузері або через додатки сторонніх розробників. Ви завжди можете видалити історію своїх координат у твітах. Дізнатися більше
There's no complaint available yet. This is all the info pacer provides so far (minus the DOJ person's email address).pic.twitter.com/zE6h9AW61s
Main Justice is having a press conference at 3 p.m., including Garland and Monaco, to announce "a civil enforcement action."https://www.justice.gov/live
JUST IN - The complaint United States v. Texas https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060093-us-v-texas-complaint …pic.twitter.com/RHBvVBHkkz
tl;dr the US is seeking a declaratory judgment seeking to have SB 8--Texas' six-week abortion ban--held invalid based on the Supreme Court's precedent's protecting a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Garland is speaking now.
"The United States also seeks an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the State of Texas, including its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under the law, from implementing or enforcing S.B. 8."
Attorney General Garland just called SB 8 a "scheme to nullify the constitution of the United States."
AG Garland also said that the further and additional risk is that other states would follow Texas's legislative model to nullify other constitutional rights.
For those asking about standing, take a look at pages 14-24 of the complaint under the heading "S.B. 8 IRREPARABLY INJURES THE UNITED STATES," where DOJ enumerates injuries based on the deprivation of women's rights as well as interference with several federal programs.
Interestingly, the differences between SB 8 (which has no exceptions for rape and incest) and the Hyde amendment (which generally prohibits federal funding of abortions, but has exceptions for rape and incest) give DOJ an opening to plead interference with federal health plans.pic.twitter.com/oFoN69ob0b
By my lights at least, the complaint is very solid on jurisdiction, standing, and the merits. Its most delicate argument relates to remedies--that everyone who might bring suit under SB 8 is a state actor and therefore (this part is implicit) can be enjoined pre-enforcement.pic.twitter.com/Y3DbF7ZbIN
You can sorta guess this argument is exotic by the way the dates of its citations jump around. The complaint has to reach back to civil rights era challenges to racially discriminatory housing codes for an analogous situation. But, at least to me, that analogy is compelling.
Ultimately, what we're going to find out is whether the Supreme Court bats down this state actor argument (or fashions a similar out) to deny this injunction, lets SB 8 get blocked and shifts the battle to upcoming cases like Dobbs, or goes fully agro and overrules Roe for real
Можливо, Твіттер перенавантажено або виникли тимчасові труднощі. Спробуйте ще раз або дізнайтеся більше про стан Твіттера.