Scotus Ruling On Texas Abortion Law: What's The Verdict?

The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in a Texas law that bans nearly all abortions in the state. The law, known as S.B. 8, prohibits abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, which is often before many women realize they are pregnant. The Supreme Court's decision to leave the Texas abortion ban in place is a victory for abortion foes and a blow to the Biden administration's attempts to preserve abortion access in states with restricted access. The Texas law includes exceptions for pregnancies threatening a woman's life or when there is a risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas abortion law is part of a broader trend of state-level efforts to restrict abortion access and challenge the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that affirmed the constitutional right to abortion.

Supreme Court declines to intervene

The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the Texas abortion law case, leaving a lower-court ruling in place that rejected the Biden administration's request to block the law. The Texas law bans nearly all abortions in the state and allows private citizens to enforce the ban by suing anyone who provides or assists with an abortion. The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene was made in a 5-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's three liberal justices in dissent.

The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, was brought to the court by a group of abortion providers who asked the justices to intervene and block the law's enforcement. The law, known as S.B. 8, is one of several so-called "heartbeat bills" enacted by Republican legislatures as part of an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These cases established that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, which is typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy. However, S.B. 8 prohibits abortions after about six weeks, a time when many women do not yet know they are pregnant.

The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene allows the Texas law to remain in effect while its constitutionality is litigated in the lower courts. The court acknowledged that the abortion providers had raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law but ultimately decided that the way the law operates made it unclear if state officials would enforce it in a way that would allow the court to get involved.

The court's inaction has been criticized by abortion rights groups and justices in dissent, who argue that the Texas law is ""flagrantly unconstitutional" and that the court's failure to intervene allows a critical legal difference to stand when "the invasion of a constitutional right" is at issue. The Texas law includes exceptions for pregnancies threatening a woman's life or when there is a risk of "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." However, the medical exceptions included in abortion bans are often vague, leaving doctors unsure of how to interpret and apply the law.

The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene in the Texas abortion law case is consistent with its previous rulings on similar cases, such as the Idaho case, where the court also declined to hear a challenge to the state's abortion law. The Texas and Idaho cases highlight the ongoing legal battle between federal law, such as EMTALA, which mandates emergency abortion care in certain circumstances, and state laws that criminalize abortion providers. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves the broader question of EMTALA's applicability in states with restrictive abortion laws unanswered.

Biden administration's challenge

The Biden administration has challenged a Texas law on emergency abortion care. The law, known as S.B. 8, is one of several so-called "heartbeat bills" enacted by Republican legislatures around the country as part of an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The law prohibits abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, which is often before many women realize they are pregnant. The Biden administration argued that the Texas law sought to overrule the longstanding federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates emergency abortion care when it is the only treatment that can save a pregnant woman's life or prevent serious harm to her health.

In late 2021, the Biden administration turned to EMTALA as a way to try to ensure access to abortion in limited situations. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in July 2022, the administration informed hospitals receiving Medicare funds that emergency room doctors must terminate pregnancies in some circumstances, even if a state's law bars the procedure. Hospitals that do not comply face penalties of up to $120,000 per violation.

The state of Texas successfully sued the Department of Health and Human Services in district court to block federal enforcement of that policy, arguing that the administration had exceeded its authority by implementing it without the required process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the decision in January 2023, finding that the Texas ban on abortion does not conflict with EMTALA. The court said the federal law does not require any particular care and never requires pregnancy termination.

The Biden administration then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit's decision, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. This left the lower court's ruling in place, barring emergency abortions in Texas that would conflict with state law. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in the Texas case, just months after it intervened in a similar case in Idaho, reflects the continued fallout and confusion from its decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the nationwide right to abortion.

The Biden administration's challenge to the Texas abortion law is part of its broader effort to preserve abortion access in states where it is restricted. The administration has faced opposition from conservative state governments and the Supreme Court, which has declined to block several state abortion bans.

Texas law exceptions

Texas has enacted a law that prohibits almost all abortions. However, there are a few exceptions to this law.

Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code prohibits abortions outright, except in certain circumstances. One exception is when the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In such cases, three factors must be met for the exception to apply: the abortion must be performed by a licensed physician; the patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed; and the physician must attempt to save the life of the fetus unless doing so would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment.

The Texas law also allows for abortion when necessary to prevent a serious risk of "substantial impairment of a major bodily function". This exception was cited by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in defending the state's abortion ban. However, the medical exceptions included in abortion bans are often vague, leaving doctors unsure of how sick a woman must be before they can legally terminate a pregnancy.

In August 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that specifically allows doctors to provide abortions in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or if a pregnant patient's water breaks too early, rendering the fetus unviable.

It is worth noting that the Texas abortion law has been heavily criticized and deemed unconstitutional by many, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, as it does not make exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

Supreme Court's inaction

The Supreme Court's inaction on the Texas abortion law has been a significant and controversial issue. In 2021, the Court declined to block the law, despite pressure from abortion rights and pro-choice groups, citing that abortion providers had not made their case regarding "complex and novel" questions. This inaction allowed the law to go into effect, and the Court's brief order denying relief to abortion providers was seen as a victory for abortion foes.

The Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8, is one of several "heartbeat bills" enacted by Republican legislatures to challenge Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The law bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, which is often before many women realize they are pregnant. To make it harder to challenge the law in court, it deputizes private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who provides or assists with an abortion, offering a $10,000 award for successful lawsuits.

The Supreme Court's inaction on the Texas law was criticized by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, who joined Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent. They described the law as "unconstitutional" and "stunning," and Justice Kagan criticized the Court's shadow-docket decision-making as "unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." Despite the Court's assertion that it was not endorsing the law's constitutionality, its inaction allowed the law to remain in place while the lower courts continued to litigate the issue.

In October 2024, the Supreme Court once again declined to intervene in a Texas emergency abortion case, rejecting the Biden administration's request to block a lower court ruling that barred emergency abortions conflicting with the state's strict abortion ban. The Court's order, issued at the start of its new term, did not explain the justices' reasoning, and there were no noted dissents. This inaction has been seen as a continuation of the fallout and confusion from the Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the nationwide right to abortion.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

The Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson has been a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding abortion laws in Texas. The case specifically addressed the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, which imposes a near-complete ban on abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, often occurring around six weeks of gestation.

In a pre-enforcement challenge, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to allow the case to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against certain defendants, affirming in part and reversing in part the order of the district court. The Court's decision, announced by Justice Gorsuch, effectively kept the Texas abortion ban in place while narrowing the scope for abortion providers to challenge the law. Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Justice Gorsuch's opinion in full, while Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor also filed a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and was joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. The Court's ruling set the stage for further legal battles over the controversial Texas abortion law, with abortion providers and pro-choice groups expressing their determination to continue challenging the law.

The case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson highlighted the deeply divided nature of the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion rights, with the Court's conservative majority upholding restrictive abortion laws, while the liberal justices dissented, arguing that such laws violate longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the constitutional rights of women. The outcome of this case has had significant implications for abortion access in Texas and has also influenced the broader national debate surrounding reproductive rights and the future of Roe v. Wade.

Frequently asked questions