Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
10-27-2021
Abstract
Amici curiae are constitutional law scholars who teach and write in the fields of constitutional law and federal courts. They share an interest in promoting the appropriate role of the federal courts in maintaining the supremacy of federal law, and in preserving our federal constitutional system and the rule of law.<\p>
In this case, this Court is asked to consider whether the United States may seek relief in federal court to protect constitutional rights in the face of state subterfuge designed to undercut those rights. Texas’s efforts to evade judicial review of Senate Bill 8 (“S.B. 8”) are central to the jurisdictional questions in this case. S.B. 8—which bans abortions once a heartbeat is detected, weeks before fetal viability—is plainly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). No one seriously argues otherwise. The “unprecedented” design of S.B. 8 is intended to unleash the full coercive authority of the State to effectuate Texas’s unconstitutional policy while insulating the State’s policy from judicial review. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 141 S. Ct. 2494, 2496 (2021) (Rob- erts, C.J., dissenting) (characterizing the delegation of authority “to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime” as “unprecedented”).
Recommended Citation
Litman, Leah, "United States v. Texas: Brief of Legal Scholars Leah Litman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, Barry Friedman, and Fred O. Smith as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (2021). Appellate Briefs. 80.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/80
Comments
Amicus: Litman, Leah; Chemerinsky, Erwin; Dorf, Michael C.; Friedman, Barry; Smith, Fred O.