Gorsuch smacks down Sotomayor complaint over court’s refusal to ban the Texas pro-life law

Earlier today we posted on the Supreme Court refusing to block the Texas pro-life law while allowing the lawsuits against it by abortion providers to continue.

Within the long opinion provided by the court Sotomayor was very unhappy that the court didn’t block the law, claiming that failure to provide relief to women wanting an abortion created a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of a ‘constitutional right’:

FOX NEWS – She argued that the court should have provided relief to Texans facing the state’s abortion restrictions. “The chilling effect has been near total, depriving pregnant women in Texas of virtually all opportunity to seek abortion care within their home State after their sixth week of pregnancy,” she wrote.

“Some women have vindicated their rights by traveling out of State. For the many women who are unable to do so, their only alternatives are to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or attempt self-induced abortions outside of the medical system.”

A vocal critic of Texas’ law, Sotomayor added that the court engaged in a “dangerous departure from its precedents, which establish that federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review.”

“By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government,” Sotomayor continued.

A constitutional right? Geez. I think we know how she’s going to vote when it comes to abortion.

Gorsuch smacked down Somotayor’s complaint, noting that the high court has “often confronted — and rejected — this very line of thinking”:

Gorsuch responded by claiming that the court has considered that question and previously rejected it. “[Sotomayor] contends that S. B. 8 ‘chills’ the exercise of federal constitutional rights,” he wrote.

“If nothing else, she says, this fact warrants allowing further relief in this case … Here again, however, it turns out that the Court has already and often confronted— and rejected—this very line of thinking. As our cases explain, the ‘chilling effect’ associated with a potentially unconstitutional law being ‘on the books’ is insufficient to ‘justify federal intervention’ in a pre-enforcement suit.”

He added that “this Court has always required proof of a more concrete injury and compliance with traditional rules of equitable practice … The Court has consistently applied these requirements whether the challenged law in question is said to chill the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, or any other right. The petitioners are not entitled to a special exemption.”

In very much related news, John Roberts sounds like he won’t be in favor of overturning Roe when it comes time:

I’m so glad that Roberts is outnumbered…


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.