Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
Sign up for our newsletter

Menu

  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships
    • From the Collection

      Changing Child Care

      Illustration of a woman feeding a baby a bottle
      • Washington, D.C., offers financial relief to local child care workers

        Orion Rummler · September 20
      • As climate change worsens hurricane season in Louisiana, doulas are ensuring parents can safely feed their babies

        Jessica Kutz · May 5
      • Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued abortion isn’t an economic issue. But is that true?

        Chabeli Carrazana · May 4
    • From the Collection

      Next-Gen GOP

      Illustration of a woman riding an elephant
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • A banner year for Republican women

        Amanda Becker · November 11
      • Republican women could double representation in the U.S. House

        Amanda Becker · November 4
    • From the Collection

      On The Rise

      Illustration of three women marching
      • Can Cheri Beasley build a winning coalition in North Carolina?

        Candice Norwood · October 11
      • Los Angeles has never elected a woman mayor. Karen Bass hopes to change that.

        Nadra Nittle · September 8
      • Judge J. Michelle Childs is confirmed to D.C. appeals court

        Candice Norwood · July 20
    • From the Collection

      Pandemic Within a Pandemic

      Illustration of four people marching for Black Lives Matter with coronavirus as the backdrop
      • The 19th Explains: Why the nursing shortage isn’t going away anytime soon

        Mariel Padilla · September 23
      • Some LGBTQ+ people worry that the COVID-19 vaccine will affect HIV medication. It won’t.

        Orion Rummler · November 23
      • Why are more men dying from COVID? It’s a complicated story of nature vs. nurture, researchers say

        Mariel Padilla · September 22
    • From the Collection

      Portraits of a Pandemic

      Illustration of a woman wearing a mask and holding up the coronavirus
      • For family caregivers, COVID is a mental health crisis in the making

        Shefali Luthra · October 8
      • A new database tracks COVID-19’s effects on sex and gender

        Shefali Luthra · September 15
      • Pregnant in a pandemic: The 'perfect storm for a crisis'

        Shefali Luthra · August 25
    • From the Collection

      The 19th Explains

      People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
      • The 19th Explains: What we know about Brittney Griner’s case and what it took to get her home

        Candice Norwood, Katherine Gilyard · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why the Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t codify same-sex marriage rights

        Kate Sosin · December 8
      • The 19th Explains: Why baby formula is still hard to find months after the shortage

        Mariel Padilla · December 1
    • From the Collection

      The Electability Myth

      Illustration of three women speaking at podiums
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • Stepping in after tragedy: How political wives became widow lawmakers

        Mariel Padilla · May 24
      • Do term limits help women candidates? New York could be a new testing ground

        Barbara Rodriguez · January 11
    • From the Collection

      The Impact of Aging

      A number of older people walking down a path of information.
      • From ballroom dancing to bloodshed, the older AAPI community grapples with gun control

        Nadra Nittle, Mariel Padilla · January 27
      • 'I'm planning on working until the day I die': Older women voters are worried about the future

        Mariel Padilla · June 3
      • Climate change is forcing care workers to act as first responders

        Jessica Kutz · May 31
    • From the Collection

      Voting Rights

      A series of hands reaching for ballots.
      • Election workers believe in our system — and want everyone else to, too

        Barbara Rodriguez, Jennifer Gerson · November 8
      • Voter ID laws stand between transgender people, women and the ballot box

        Barbara Rodriguez · October 14
      • Emily’s List expands focus on diverse candidates and voting rights ahead of midterm elections

        Errin Haines · August 30

    View all collections

  • Explore by Topic

    • 19th Polling
    • Abortion
    • Business & Economy
    • Caregiving
    • Coronavirus
    • Education
    • Election 2020
    • Election 2022
    • Environment & Climate
    • Health
    • Immigration
    • Inside The 19th
    • Justice
    • LGBTQ+
    • Politics
    • Press Release
    • Race
    • Sports
    • Technology

    View All Topics

Home
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

The 19th News(letter)

News from reporters who represent you and your communities.

You have been subscribed!

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Become a member

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

A woman accompanied by a lab technician walks down the hall at an abortion clinic.
Texans like this woman have traveled to Louisiana and other neighboring states for abortions since the enactment of SB 8 in September. (Rebecca Blackwell/AP)

Abortion

‘This does not feel like a green light’: Supreme Court ruling doesn’t change anything for abortion providers in Texas

Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling on who can be sued over the state’s six-week ban complicates a potential injunction on enforcement of the law. 

Shefali Luthra

Health Reporter

Shefali Luthra portrait

Published

2021-12-10 15:18
3:18
December 10, 2021
pm

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

The Supreme Court has allowed abortion providers to challenge Texas’ six-week abortion ban, the strictest active abortion restriction in the nation. But the ruling’s narrow scope means it is unlikely that such abortions will soon resume in the state.

Despite allowing a lawsuit to proceed, the court did not block the Texas abortion law. As such, abortion providers in the state have indicated they will not yet be providing abortions for people pregnant beyond six weeks because of the potential for civil lawsuits to still be filed under the law.

“This does not feel like a green light for us to reopen,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, one of the state’s biggest abortion provider networks. “There’s no injunction blocking this law from going into effect, and the risks for clinic staff and physicians remain great.”

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

So far, the state’s abortion providers have turned away hundreds of patients seeking abortions since the law went into effect September 1, now more than 100 days ago. Most of those patients cannot afford to travel to other states where abortion is available, Miller said.

In its decision, the court also significantly limited whom Texas’ abortion providers are allowed to sue in their challenge. Friday’s decision, authored by the court’s conservative wing, held that  only four Texas licensing boards — the state health department, medical board, nursing board and pharmacy board — are liable to be sued. 

The implications are significant, legal scholars told The 19th. The Texas law was designed to evade judicial review. Rather than criminalizing abortions after six weeks, it creates what is effectively a bounty-hunting scheme, by incentivizing private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” such an abortion. Successful plaintiffs receive a minimum $10,000 reward, and their legal fees reimbursed. 

Stories by experienced reporters you can trust and relate to.

Delivered directly to your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please try again later.

The threat of such lawsuits has effectively ended access to most abortion in Texas; no clinic has performed abortions for pregnancies beyond six weeks while the law has been in effect, though one doctor has. 

Despite the enforcement role civil courts play, the Supreme Court argued that the state’s judicial bodies — court clerks and the attorney general — cannot be sued over the abortion law, known as SB8. That makes it difficult to see how lower courts could issue any kind of ruling or injunction that paves the way for abortions in Texas, said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and expert in federal courts.

“Even if there’s an injunction against [licensing boards], how does that prevent random plaintiffs from bringing enforcement actions against providers? How does that solve the problem that’s currently preventing providers from performing abortions?” he said. “That, from the providers’ perspective, is not winning.”

Technically, the case has now been remanded to a federal court in Austin, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The presiding judge, Judge Robert Pitman, has previously ruled against SB8 and granted an injunction blocking the statute. 

In his October decision, Pitman noted that the abortion restriction defies precedent established in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, as well as 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Those cases enshrined the right to an abortion up until a fetus can live outside the womb — which typically occurs around 24 weeks. 

  • More from The 19th
    The U.S. Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court rules that abortion providers can sue over Texas law
  • What are safe haven laws, and why did they come up in a Supreme Court case on abortion?
  • Supreme Court indicates it could eliminate a core element of Roe v. Wade

In theory, Pitman could attempt to issue a similar ruling. But in practice, if abortion providers are able to sue only medical licensing boards over their role in enforcing the law, the district court’s ruling would probably have little effect. It is unclear how Pitman — or any judge — could issue a decision in such a limited case that would still stop private citizens from having the power to sue either abortion providers or anyone else who helps someone get an abortion. 

“By only allowing the lawsuit to go forth against these defendants, it raises uncertainty about whether the district court has authority to award what would be effective relief,” said Leah Litman, a constitutional law expert at the University of Michigan. “If the relief the district court orders doesn’t do anything to delete the prospect of civil lawsuits against abortion providers, then abortion providers aren’t gong to be able to resume providing abortion.”

It is unclear when the lower court will issue a decision. Vladeck and Litman both said they expect one “soon” — though it may take somewhat longer, given the legal complexities of the case. 

And any decision could potentially be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the conservative federal court that oversees Texas. 

Legal experts suggested that the court’s decision could also offer Texas a framework to retool its abortion ban so that it no longer incorporates medical licensing boards, a strategy that could potentially help both it and other states more fully evade judicial review. 

It also could suggest to states that there is in fact a way to pass laws restricting certain rights — abortion or otherwise — that are theoretically protected by the Constitution. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is considering another challenge to abortion rights, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In that case, heard December 1, the court is considering whether to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely, a decision that would eliminate any federal abortion protections and could give states full freedom to ban the procedure. 

A majority of the court appeared open to such a ruling during the Dobbs oral arguments. That could ultimately shape how the courts rule in Texas, too. In Friday’s ruling, the majority did not opine on the constitutionality of Texas’ law — only on whether abortion providers had the right to sue, and whom they were allowed to challenge. 

“It’s possible the lawsuit will [eventually] result in a loss on the merits if and when the court overrules Roe and Casey. Given what transpired at the oral argument in Dobbs, I think that’s more likely,” Litman said. “It’s not clear this lawsuit is going to provide meaningful protection for abortion rights in the short or long-term.”

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Help sustain what we started

Your monthly investment is critical to our sustainability as a nonprofit newsroom.

Donate Today

Become a member

Up Next

The U.S. Supreme Court

Abortion

Supreme Court rules that abortion providers can sue over Texas law

The decision does not immediately change the availability of abortion in Texas and leaves open an avenue for states to pass future abortion restrictions. 

Read the Story

The 19th
The 19th is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Our stories are free to republish in accordance with these guidelines.

  • Donate
  • Newsletter
  • Events
  • Search
  • Jobs
  • Fellowships
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Community Guidelines
  • Membership
  • Membership FAQ
  • Major Gifts
  • Sponsorship
  • Privacy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram