Term: 2021
Docket: 21-463
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
- Pro
21-463 WHOLE WOMEN'S HEALTH V. JACKSON, JUDGE DECISION BELOW: 13 F.4th 434 EXPEDITED BRIEFING. CERT. GRANTED 10/22/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The State of Texas adopted a law banning abortions at approximately six weeks of pregnancy, in clear violation of this Court's precedents holding that a State cannot prohibit abortion at a point before viability. To try to insulate this unconstitutional prohibition from a federal challenge, the legislature crafted the law to prohibit government officials from directly enforcing it and instead delegated enforcement to the general public via civil actions that "any person" can file in Texas state court. Petitioners- Texas abortion providers and individuals and organizations that support abortion patients-brought suit in federal court against, among others, the clerks and judges of the courts where enforcement actions can be brought and the Texas attorney general. The district court denied Respondents' motions to dismiss on standing and sovereign-immunity grounds. Although Respondents' appeal is pending in the Fifth Circuit, that Court has now issued an order that effectively forecloses Petitioners' claims against the government officials. The question presented is whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-50792
The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, a case concerning abortion rights in Texas. The state had passed two laws that placed restrictions on abortions: one required doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and another mandated that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery centers. These requirements were challenged by Whole Woman's Health as unconstitutional because they imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions without providing any medical benefits or improving patient safety. In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Whole Women’s Health, finding that both regulations violated the Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty and privacy under Roe v Wade (1973). This ruling reaffirmed existing precedent protecting abortion access and will likely have far reaching implications for other states considering similar legislation restricting abortion rights.
In the dissenting opinion of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, Justice Alito argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law. He argued that the majority opinion was based on a flawed interpretation of the law and that the law should be interpreted in a way that would allow states to regulate abortion clinics in order to protect women's health. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the undue burden standard, which he argued should be interpreted to allow states to regulate abortion clinics in order to protect women's health. He also argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law's preemption clause, which he argued should be interpreted to allow states to regulate abortion clinics in order to protect women's health. Finally, he argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law's severability clause, which he argued should be interpreted to allow states to regulate abortion clinics in order to protect women's health. In conclusion, Justice Alito argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law and that the law should be interpreted in a way that would allow states to regulate abortion clinics in order to protect women's health.
