Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

(12,648 posts)
Fri Feb 24, 2023, 06:24 PM Feb 2023

BREAKING: Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law

Chris “Subscribe to Law Dork!” Geidner
@chrisgeidner

Breaking: US District Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law and has barred defendant prosecutors from enforcing them.

More to come ...




It is a mixed ruling. Paxton was dismissed, and more recent laws (H.B. 1280 and S.B. 8) were not enjoined.

This all comes in a case about discussing, funding, and supporting out-of-state abortions (Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton).

The 52-page ruling:

courtlistener.com
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim



7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law (Original Post) In It to Win It Feb 2023 OP
Legalese is hard for me to parse. CaliforniaPeggy Feb 2023 #1
Mostly good news. (Threadreader) crickets Feb 2023 #2
Thanks for this. I hope it holds up when Paxton appeals (as I assume he'll do). ShazzieB Feb 2023 #4
What a superb ruling!! MayReasonRule Feb 2023 #3
Meh. The Chicken Supremes will overrule faster than you can say Gilead. peppertree Feb 2023 #5
kick BlueWaveNeverEnd Feb 2023 #6
Kick for visibility. lamp_shade Feb 2023 #7

CaliforniaPeggy

(156,619 posts)
1. Legalese is hard for me to parse.
Fri Feb 24, 2023, 06:31 PM
Feb 2023

So, this ruling basically states that that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law and has barred defendant prosecutors from enforcing them.

It sounds like good news. I hope it is.

crickets

(26,168 posts)
2. Mostly good news. (Threadreader)
Fri Feb 24, 2023, 07:12 PM
Feb 2023

Link to full thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1629237990404034561.html

Excerpt of conclusion:

So, what happened?
* Paxton is dismissed (b/c he can't enforce pre-Roe bans or SB8, and HB1280 doesn't apply to abortions out of Texas)
* Local prosecutors are enjoined from enforcing pre-Roe abortion bans (even though, and b/c, they have already been repealed by implication)
This does not change abortion rights on the ground in Texas, but it does provide a ruling that backs those in Texas who are supporting people seeking out-of-state abortions — with an injunction against prosecutors using pre-Roe bans and a strong court ruling on HB1280's limits.

ShazzieB

(22,582 posts)
4. Thanks for this. I hope it holds up when Paxton appeals (as I assume he'll do).
Fri Feb 24, 2023, 08:57 PM
Feb 2023

The idea of one state wanting to control what happens in another state, under that other state's laws, really grinds my gears. As the resident of a blue state that is happy to provide reproductive health care to people from states with draconian abortion laws, I say: MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS, TEXASS!

MayReasonRule

(4,099 posts)
3. What a superb ruling!!
Fri Feb 24, 2023, 07:47 PM
Feb 2023

"As to HB1280 (Texas's so-called "trigger law&quot specifically, Pitman notes that, while politicians including Paxton have made threats about extra-territorial enforcement, that's not what the law says. (Pp. 28-29.) "

In sum, the Court is faced with an unusual pre-enforcement challenge. H.B. 1280, employing
all standard means of statutory construction, cannot apply extraterritorially or regulate Plaintiffs’
desired conduct. Yet Paxton and others, for the deliberate purpose of deterring funds from
facilitating out-of-state abortions, have suggested the opposite. If H.B. 1280 were at all ambiguous,
the Court would find that Plaintiffs’ conduct is arguably covered by the law. But H.B. 1280 is
unambiguous—it does not penalize out-of-state abortions, and as such, does not penalize conduct
related to out-of-state abortions. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ conduct is not arguably
covered by H.B. 1280 and will grant Paxton’s motion to dismiss.


"Note that Pitman drops a "what if they try anyway" footnote, saying, more or less, "come back if they try it." "

16 While the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ H.B. 1280 claims without prejudice, it recognizes that there may be
certain situations where the statutory analysis changes. For example, the analysis might change if a local
prosecutor imminently threatens charges for funding out-of-state abortions or an opinion from the Attorney
General’s office declares it illegal. See Hill v. City of Houston, 789 F.2d at 1164–65 (finding standing for
overbreadth where the city prosecuted and did not disavow a broad reading of the ordinance).


Borrowing from Willie, i.e. My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys

Nat-C's have always been losers, and they still are it seems...
Sadly in search of, and one step in back of, the truth, and one damned reasoned thing...


May reason rule.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: Judge Robert Pi...