Mr. Stone mentioned the Texas legislation “is capped at a lot lower than that.”
“Yeah,” Chief Justice Roberts mentioned, somewhat irritated. “My query is what we name a hypothetical.”
Justice Kagan mentioned Texas shouldn’t be rewarded for drafting a intelligent legislation.
“The truth that in any case these a few years, some geniuses got here up with a technique to evade the instructions of” an essential precedent, she mentioned, and “the even broader precept that states are to not nullify federal constitutional rights and to say, ‘Oh, we’ve by no means seen this earlier than, so we will’t do something about it’ — I suppose I simply don’t perceive the argument.”
Solicitor Common Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the federal authorities, mentioned the Texas legislation was designed “to thwart the supremacy of federal legislation in open defiance of our constitutional construction.”
“States are free to ask this court docket to rethink its constitutional precedents,” she mentioned, “however they aren’t free to put themselves above this court docket, nullify the court docket’s selections of their borders, and block the judicial overview essential to vindicate federal rights.”
A number of justices, together with ones who had proven sympathy for the suppliers’ problem, appeared cautious of permitting the federal authorities to sue states for enacting legal guidelines mentioned to violate the Structure.
“You say this case could be very slender, it’s uncommon, it’s significantly problematic,” Chief Justice Roberts mentioned. “However the authority you say to answer it’s as broad as may be.”
Justice Kavanaugh mentioned there have been potential methods to permit the suppliers’ case to proceed.
“Your case, against this,” he instructed Ms. Prelogar, appears “simply totally different and irregular and weird, and we don’t know the place it goes.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/us/politics/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html | Supreme Court docket Hints That It Might Permit Problem to Texas Abortion Legislation