Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (21-463)

argument 21-463

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 23m 9 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional right does Whole Woman's Health claim is being violated by Texas SB8?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty one four sixty three, whole women's health versus Jackson. Mr

Unknown 0:09

Heron? Mm-hmm. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In enacting Senate Bill Eight, the Texas legislature not only deliberately prohibited the exercise of a constitutional right recognized by this court. It did everything it could to evade effective judicial protection of that right in federal or state court. Texas delegated enforcement to literally any person anywhere except its own state officials. The only conceivable reason for doing so was to evade federal court review under Exbarte Young. Texas then created special rules applicable only to SBA claims that make it all but impossible to protect one's constitutional rights in state court. For a single abortion, the law authorizes limitless suits in all two hundred and fifty four counties and provides that a victory in one has no precise effect in any other.

Unknown 1:06

Taxes incentivized enforcement through awards of at least ten thousand dollars per prohibited abortion against each defendant without any showing of injury. And it added draconian one sided fees provisions with liability extended even to attorneys themselves. The combined effect is to transform the state courts from a forum for the protection of rights into a mechanism for nullifying them. As respondent Dixon has said, no rational abortion provider would violate this law. While court clerks are not ordinarily proper defendants, in these circumstances the principles underlying Exparte Young authorize federal court relief against clerks. Their docketing of SB8 suits, which is critical to effectuate Texas's illegal scheme, inflicts Article III injury in fact.

Unknown 1:58

and is redressable by an order barring such docketing. SB eight is an abortion prohibition, but the issues before this court are far more sweeping. To allow Texas's scheme to stand would provide a roadmap for other states to abrogate any decision of this court with which they disagree. At issue here is nothing less than the supremacy of federal law.

Clarence Thomas 2:22

Uh council uh Uh you rely on export A Young to some extent. But Ex parte Young makes clear that federal courts cannot enjoin uh state judges. So uh how do you uh distinguish your case from the express language in Ex parte Young?

Unknown 2:44

Your Honor, the the language in Ex parte Young uh that I believe you're referring to discusses um and and specifically allows an an injunction against the commencement of the suit. And I and Your Honor, I think here that supports an injunction against the clerks. It distinguishes between restraining the commencement of a suit versus um a a suit that after it has already been filed. So I think that that that language actually supports relief against the clerks here. It's also premised, Your Honor, on there being um an executive official who you could enjoy and here the state has intentionally taken away the executive officials.

Clarence Thomas 3:21

But that's that's a that's what the case was about. It was about enforcing an action against a party. Hence the case uh the focus is on enforcement as opposed to adjudicating that for enforcement. And I don't think it really distinguishes it to say, well this isn't about that. I mean it expressly excludes uh in joining a state uh court.

Unknown 3:48

Well Your Honor, I think it it It in it excludes in joining the uh court the a in action after it has already been filed, but it allows for it says that that there is the power to restrain the commencement of the suit. And and I appre and I understand, Your Honor, that in that suit it was an injunction against the state official who was who was commencing the suit, but I don't think that it is I think the principles underlying ex parte young. Вірту Ала федерал форм for the vindication of federal constitutional rights. would support an action here against the clerks to enjoy the commencement of the suit. I also think that that language in Ex parte Young is not about sovereign immunity.

Unknown 4:31

It wasn't in the part of the the section of the opinion where the court was addressing sovereign immunity, it was addressing a remedy that's available by courts in equity.