The Right To Defy an Unconstitutional Law
Respect for law is a basic tenet of democracy and the integrity of our judicial system. But the right to defy an unconstitutional law is also basic to our constitutional structure.
October 05, 2021 at 09:45 AM
6 minute read
The Texas Fetal Heartbeat Act is unprecedented and unconstitutional and its legislators surely knew this when they passed the statute. By barring a woman from terminating her pregnancy 16 weeks before viability, the law on its face violates long-established constitutional precedents. See Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ("right of the woman to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State"); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (prior to viability, fundamental right a woman, prior to viability, to consult with her physician and obtain abortion "free of interference by the State"). Moreover, the Texas law was intentionally written to insulate the state from being sued; it delegates enforcement to bounty hunters who can collect $10,000 and court costs for reporting violators. Indeed, a Texas doctor, Alan Braid, openly acknowledged violating the law and is presently being hauled into court by two such vigilantes. The law makes no exception for rape, sexual abuse, or incest (although, in a macabre gesture, the law declares that "the person who impregnated the abortion patient" may not bring a civil action to recover the bounty). The law targets not only doctors and clinics but any person who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion—for example, a person who drives the woman to a clinic or loans money to a woman to pay for the abortion. These individuals can be sued even if they don't know that an abortion is to be performed. The refusal of the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the law has emboldened proponents and deepened public cynicism of the court.
The 25-page law includes strange and unusual provisions. The law declares that "there is no right to abortion" even before a fetal heartbeat is detected; there is no defense that the law is unconstitutional; federal decisions are not binding on a state court in which an action has been brought; a challenger has no standing to assert the rights of the woman seeking an abortion; a claim that the law imposes an undue burden on the right to an abortion is unavailable; there is no defense if the Supreme Court later overrules Roe and Casey, even though the conduct occurred before the overruling; the law survives even if the offensive provisions are declared unconstitutional and severed from the rest of the law; elaborate documentation by a doctor is required as to what tests he or she performed to determine a fetal heartbeat and why they believed there was a medical emergency; there is no definition of a medical emergency; and private vigilantes have four years to report violators.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Public Is Best Served by an Ethics Commission That Is Not Dominated by the People It Oversees
4 minute readThe Crisis of Incarcerated Transgender People: A Call to Action for the Judiciary, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250