Changes

Not surprisingly, abortion providers sought to enjoin the law in Federal District Court, by suing 1) the Texas Attorney General, 2) a district judge in Tyler (Austin Reeve Jackson, who was endorsed by prominent pro-life groups in his campaign; East Texas is also where the [[abortion sanctuary city]] movement started), 3) Judge Jackson's clerks, and 4) Mark Lee Dickson, a private citizen (and founder of the abortion sanctuary city movement), notwithstanding that by law the Attorney General, the Judge, and the Judge's staff can't enforce the act, and Dickson has sworn under oath that he has no intention of suing.  The District Court refused to throw out the case, whereupon the defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has appellate jurisdiction over Texas), which granted the defendants' request to stay the proceedings and refused the plaintiffs' request for an expedited judgment.  Undeterred, the plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction in the United States Supreme Court; Justice Samuel Alito refused to grant one on his own authority and thus brought the matter before the entire Court.

Not surprisingly, abortion providers sought to enjoin the law in Federal District Court, by suing 1) the Texas Attorney General, 2) a district judge in Tyler (Austin Reeve Jackson, who was endorsed by prominent pro-life groups in his campaign; East Texas is also where the [[abortion sanctuary city]] movement started), 3) Judge Jackson's clerks, and 4) Mark Lee Dickson, a private citizen (and founder of the abortion sanctuary city movement), notwithstanding that by law the Attorney General, the Judge, and the Judge's staff can't enforce the act, and Dickson has sworn under oath that he has no intention of suing.  The District Court refused to throw out the case, whereupon the defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has appellate jurisdiction over Texas), which granted the defendants' request to stay the proceedings and refused the plaintiffs' request for an expedited judgment.  Undeterred, the plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction in the United States Supreme Court; Justice Samuel Alito refused to grant one on his own authority and thus brought the matter before the entire Court.

In a 5-4 decision (Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas in the majority) the Court refused to grant an injunction.  Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, argued that due to the unique private citizen provision, the matter should be stayed until hearings could be held, while Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor argued that the bill was an attack on the "constitutional right" to abortion. As such, the law is currently in effect.

In a 5-4 decision (Justices [[Samuel Alito]], [[Amy Coney Barrett]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]], and [[Clarence Thomas]] in the majority) the Court refused to grant an injunction.  Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], in his dissent, argued that because of the unique private citizen provision of the legislation the matter should be stayed until hearings could be held, while Justices [[Stephen Breyer]], [[Elena Kagan]], and [[Sonia Sotomayor]] argued that the bill was an attack on the "constitutional right" to abortion. The law remains in effect pending full oral arguments before the court.

==References==

==References==