United States v. Texas (21-588)

argument 21-588

United States v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 27m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the constitutional issue Texas is alleged to have created with SB 8?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case twenty one five eighty eight, United States ver versus Texas, General Prelogger.

Merrick B. Garland 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Texas designed S B eight to thwart the supremacy of federal law in open defiance of our constitutional structure. States are free to ask this court to reconsider its constitutional precedents, but they are not free to place themselves above this court, nullify the court's decisions in their borders, and block the judicial review necessary to vindicate federal rights. As this case comes to the court, there are three principal questions. First, is Texas responsible for this law? Second, can the United States sue to hold Texas to account? And third, is the injunctive relief available? And the answer is yes, down the line. Texas is responsible for the constitutional violation here.

Merrick B. Garland 0:56

It enacted a law that clearly violates this court's precedence. It designed that law to thwart judicial review by offering bounties to the general public to carry out the state's enforcement function. And it structured those enforcement proceedings to be so burdensome and to threaten such significant liability that they chilled the exercise of the constitutional right altogether. The United States has a manifest sovereign interest in suing to redress this violation. SB eight is a brazen attack on the coordinate branches of the federal government. It's an attack on the authority of this court to say what the law is and to have that judgment respected across the fifty states, and it's an attack on Congress's determination that there should be access to pre enforcement review in federal court to vindicate federal rights.

Merrick B. Garland 1:45

The United States may sue to protect the supremacy of federal law against this attack. Finally, the injunction is a proper response to Texas's unprecedented law. If Texas can nullify Roe and Casey in this manner, then other states could do the same with other constitutional rights or other decisions of this court that they disfavor. Federal courts are not powerless to craft relief to stop that intolerable threat to our constitutional hierarchy.

Clarence Thomas 2:14

Uh General Prelager, would you spend uh just a few minutes on uh the United States interests um that gives you a basis for being uh involved in the suit.

Merrick B. Garland 2:28

Of course, Justice Thomas. The interest of the United States here is the sovereign interest in ensuring that states cannot flout the supremacy of federal law by enacting a law that's clearly unconstitutional and then through this simple mechanism of outsourcing enforcement authority to the world at large, blocking the traditional mechanisms for judicial review that that Congress in section nineteen eighty three and that this court and ex parte young recognized would be vital to securing federal constitutional rights against that kind of law.

Clarence Thomas 2:59

Is there any difference between uh uh legislation and uh uh precedent of this court as far as the uh supremacy interest that you have.

Merrick B. Garland 3:11

I think that if a state structured a law in exactly this manner to try to flout uh this court's precedence, for example, interpreting statutes, that it would raise that same kind of supremacy concern. But of course here I think that the situation has additional urgency because what Texas has done is taken a constitutional precedent from this court and legislated in direct defiance of that precedent and then tried to, in the words of the interveners, box the judiciary out of the equation and prevent the courts from being able to provide any meaningful form of redress.

Clarence Thomas 3:46

Uh you s you uh uh based uh your involvement quite a bit on debts. Can you give me a couple ex of examples where the United States has uh taken a similar action based on debts?

Merrick B. Garland 4:02

I'd be happy to. And I wanna acknowledge at the outset that we can't point to a case that looks exactly like this one and that's because there has never been a law exactly like this one. No state has ever sought to challenge the supremacy of federal law and keep the courts out of the equation in quite the same way. But I think that there are relevant principles to distill from the Deb's line of cases.