Connect with us

U.S. News

Justice Department sues Texas over new restrictive abortion law




  • The Department of Justice is suing Texas over its restrictive abortion law.
  • Last week, the Supreme Court refused to block the near-total ban abortion law from taking effect.
  • As part of the lawsuit, the DOJ is seeking an immediate court order preventing the enforcement of S.B.8 in Texas.

The Department of Justice is suing Texas over its near-total ban on abortions, which the Supreme Court declined to block last week.

On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that the DOJ filed a suit against the state over its new law, which he called “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”

“The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights,” Garland said at a news conference.

The 30-page complaint, filed Thursday in federal court in Texas, argues the law is unconstitutional and was enacted in open defiance of the Constitution.

The Justice Department seeks a declaratory judgment that the law, formally known as Senate Bill 8, is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

S.B. 8  prohibits most abortions, even in cases of rape, sexual abuse, or incest. It also prohibits any effort to aid — or any intent to aid — the doctors who provide the prohibited abortions or women who try to get one.

It bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy before many women know they are pregnant. What makes the law unique is that it allows private citizens, rather than state officials, to sue abortion providers.

After the Supreme Court’s decision last week, President Joe Biden vowed a “whole-of-government” response to try to safeguard access to abortions in Texas.

Biden directed White House legal and gender policy advisers, the DOJ and his Health and Human Services Department to evaluate what “legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas’ bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties.”

Garland said DOJ’s decision was not based on pressure from lawmakers or the White House.

“We carefully evaluated the law and the facts and this complaint expressed our view of the law and the facts,” said Garland.

The administration’s move comes as the conservative 6-3 Supreme Court majority is expected to take up a case from Mississippi in its term beginning this fall that challenges Roe v. Wade.


Source: NBC News



  1. Dicky

    September 10, 2021 at 4:16 pm

    F**k the DOJ !

    • Richard

      September 14, 2021 at 11:43 am

      Totally agree with you!

  2. Leslie M Seely

    September 11, 2021 at 12:03 pm

    I don’t think any of the currant administration has ever took the time to read the constitution of The United States, if they had some of them would put up a fuss for all this BS that they are putting out. on the vaccination, I have had it, but they put so many conflicting reports you do not know who to trust. We all ; well most of us , know all this give away can not keep up, someone will need to pay. Nothing is free.
    The DOJ has nothing better to do; I can think of lot of things that need taken care of. There times when abortion needs to happen but not just because of a wild week-end. There are so many preventatives on the market now days, use them if you must. I think Texas or any state should have the right to pass laws that most of citizens want, some I think should be put on the ballet to make sure it is what the people do want.
    The Old Marine

    • GomeznSA

      September 13, 2021 at 11:51 am

      Leslie – it is (slightly) possible that they did read the Constitution at one time or another (maybe under duress?) since they claim LOTS of things are in there that simply aren’t. Or else they got their reading comprehension skills from piers morgan. He ‘found’ muskets in there somewhere since he claims that is all that the Second Amendment refers to. That is how they manage to read between the lines and distort the clear meaning of the written works contained in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *