Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

United States v. Texas (2021)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Texas
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: November 1, 2021
Decided: December 10, 2021
Outcome
Dismissed
Vote
NA
Majority
Per curiam

United States v. Texas is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 1, 2021, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. In a per curiam decision on December 10, 2021, the court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, meaning the court should not have accepted the case. The court also allowed enforcement of S.B. 8 to continue.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

This case was one of three heard by SCOTUS during its October 2021 term that related to abortion. To read more about the background of each of those cases, the questions presented, and the outcomes, click here.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether the federal government has the right to challenge Texas state law S.B. 8 in federal court.
  • The question presented: "May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced."[2]
  • The outcome: In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the case and allowed enforcement of S.B. 8 to continue.[1]


    • The case came on an application by the U.S. Department of Justice to vacate the stay of a preliminary injunction issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court elected to treat that application as a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment, and accordingly issued a writ of certiorari to the 5th Circuit. Click here to review the 5th Circuit's order issued on October 14.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • December 10, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case and allowed enforcement of S.B. 8 to continue.
    • November 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • October 22, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • October 18, 2021: The U.S. Department of Justice filed an application to vacate the stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court converted this application into a petition for writ of certiorari before a judgment.
    • October 14, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stayed the district court's preliminary injunction.
    • October 6, 2021: The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of S.B. 8.

    Background

    See also: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

    By midnight of August 31, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court did not respond to an emergency appeal filed by a group of abortion providers—known as Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, et al—seeking to block enforcement of a Texas law that banned abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law. The latter authorization allowed private citizens, including citizens residing outside of the state of Texas, to bring civil actions against individuals for aiding a patient with getting an abortion. The bill did not authorize state officials to enforce the law, nor bring criminal proceedings, precluding judicial review. The bill, S.B. 8, was signed into law on May 19, 2021, by Governor Greg Abbott (R). The petitioners initially challenged the law in federal district court, arguing that the law violated the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), establishing the constitutional right to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability approximately 24 weeks into a pregnancy. While the district court was considering the challenge, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ordered a stay of the district court's proceedings, halting their consideration. The petitioners then filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, submitted to Justice Samuel Alito, who was assigned to the 5th Circuit and was responsible for reviewing emergency appeals. As the circuit justice, Alito was authorized to respond to the request himself or refer the matter to the full court for consideration.[3][4][5] On September 1, the law went into effect.

    With litigation over S.B. 8 ongoing in the federal courts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sought a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to stop Texas and any state employees or agents from enforcing the law while the courts determined the law's validity. The district court granted the DOJ's request for a preliminary injunction on October 6.[6] The state appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and on October 14, the 5th Circuit stayed, or paused, the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, allowing enforcement of S.B. 8 to resume.

    In response, the DOJ filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit's ruling which allowed the law's enforcement to resume.[7] SCOTUS allowed the 5th Circuit's ruling to stand, continuing to allow the law's enforcement. As well, the court converted the DOJ's application into a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. This meant that, if the court accepted the petition, it would hear oral arguments in the case during the 2021-2022 term. On October 22, the court accepted the case and set the argument date for November 1, along with the case Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, which also related to the Texas law.[8]

    In the Supreme Court's order, Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting from the court's decision to allow enforcement of S.B. 8. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[8]

    “ Recognizing that Texas’ scheme raises concerns of imperative public importance, the Court properly grants certiorari before judgment. ... However, the Court’s failure to issue an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order pending its decision on this application will have profound and immediate consequences. By delaying any remedy, the Court enables continued and irreparable harm to women seeking abortion care and providers of such care in Texas—exactly as S. B. 8’s architects intended. ... Whatever equities favor caution in staying a state law under normal circumstances cannot outweigh the total and intentional denial of a constitutional right to women while this Court considers the serious questions presented.[9] ”

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[2]

    Question presented:
    “ May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.[9] ”

    Oral argument

    The court heard arguments in the case on November 1, 2021.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Outcome

    In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the case from its merits docket as improvidently granted, meaning that the court ruled that it should not have taken up the case.[12] The court also denied the application to vacate the stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the court.[1]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Reactions to ruling

    The section below contains quotes from elected officials, scholars, legal experts, and advocacy groups related to the rulings in the two Texas abortion cases. The collapsed section at the bottom contains quotes and analysis from before the opinions were issued.

    Elected officials

    President Joe Biden (D) said the following in a statement:[13]

    “ I am very concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow SB8 to remain in effect in light of the significant consequences that law has for women in Texas and around the country, and for the rule of law. As I have made clear from Day One, I am deeply committed to the constitutional right recognized in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago.


    While it is encouraging that the Court ruled that part of the providers’ lawsuit may continue, this ruling reinforces that there is so much more work to be done—in Texas, in Mississippi, and in many states around the country where women’s rights are currently under attack. I will continue to work with Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act. We have more work to do, but I will always stand with women to protect and defend their long-recognized, constitutional right under Roe v. Wade.[9]

    		”

    U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the following in a statement:[14]

    “ Every life is a gift from God, and without life, there is no liberty—that’s why I’m proud to stand up and defend life. Today, the Supreme Court largely left in place a Texas law that protects life and sends a message that every life is valuable. This is victory for Texas and the pro-life movement.[9] ”

    Advocacy Groups

    Supporting defendants

    Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director at the American Center for Law & Justice, said the following in a statement. The group filed briefs in support of the defendants in both cases.[15]

    “ This is a new world we are living in when it comes to the pro-life movement. We have remained diligent in our fight and we are starting to see a shift in the Courts. We hope many states follow the lead of Texas and that we are able to report on many more of these pro-life victories. Our fight is not over yet. We will look forward to the decision on the Dobbs case that will likely come in June, but we are directly engaging in many other pro-life cases nationwide in the meantime.[9] ”

    Ed Whelan, a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote the following in National Review. The group filed a brief in support of the defendants in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.[16]

    “ The ruling strikes me overall as a big loss for the abortion providers. The only defendants whom they can pursue for relief are state licensing officials who might pursue them down the road for violations of the Texas Heartbeat Act. The ruling does nothing to remove the threat of lawsuits for violations of the Act.


    To be sure, Justice Gorsuch’s opinion points out that defendants in enforcement actions may invoke their federal constitutional defenses, irrespective of what the Act says. But that is an uncontroversial point.[9]

    		”

    Supporting petitioners

    Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the following in a statement. The group filed a brief in support of the petitioners in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson.[17]

    “ It’s stunning that the Supreme Court has essentially said that federal courts cannot stop this bounty-hunter scheme enacted to blatantly deny Texans their constitutional right to abortion. The Court has abandoned its duty to ensure that states do not defy its decisions. For 100 days now, this six-week ban has been in effect, and today’s ruling means there is no end in sight. Pregnant people will continue to live in a state of panic and uncertainty.[9] ”

    Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the following in a statement. The group filed briefs in support of the petitioners in both cases.[18]

    “ Let’s be clear: while today’s ruling contained one small step forward, allowing a portion of the SB 8 challenge to proceed, it contained many more ominous steps backward. The Court breaks faith with the Constitution by allowing a state to deny people their rights protected by the Constitution, rights that the Court has a duty to uphold. And hidden under the veneer of the Court allowing, in some limited respect, the challenge to SB 8 by Whole Woman’s Health to continue, the Court has effectively given a green light to state efforts to limit fundamental constitutional rights. Abortion rights are being denied in Texas, still, and only four Justices were willing to say today that SB 8 is unconstitutional.[9] ”

    Lower court rulings

    Three lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court hearing this case. Those rulings were:[23]

    Western District of Texas ruling (October 2021)

    On October 6, 2021, Judge Robert Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against SB 8. Pitman was appointed to the court in 2014 by President Barack Obama (D). To read the full ruling, click here. In the conclusion to his ruling, Pitman wrote:[24]

    “ Moreover, had this Court not acted on its sound authority to provide relief to the United States, any number of states could enact legislation that deprives citizens of their constitutional rights, with no legal remedy to challenge that deprivation, without the concern that a federal court would enter an injunction. As has been reported, “legal scholars fear that the law in Texas will lead to a rush of similar efforts in other states, prompting local legislators to pursue new measures on gun rights, immigration[,] and other divisive political issues, all in an effort to sidestep the federal government. From the Deep South to the Upper Midwest, legislators in many conservative states have started to explore how similar laws could be put in place in the months ahead.” (The New Texas Abortion Law Is Becoming a Model for Other States, L.A. Times, Supp. Dec. Newman, Dkt. 56-2, at 10–11). Equally plausible is that states at the other end of the political spectrum could use a similar tactic to ban or impermissibly limit another constitutional right, like a right grounded in the Second Amendment, to further a political agenda. This Court’s preliminary injunction, should it stand, discourages states from doing so: if legislators know they cannot accomplish political agendas that curtail or eliminate constitutional rights and intentionally remove the legal remedy to challenge it, then other states are less likely to engage in copycat legislation. Thus, rather than increase the number of suits by the United States, this Court’s preliminary injunction maintains the status quo of very few such suits and preserves this cause of action for exceptional cases like this one.[9] ”

    Texas appealed Judge Pitman's ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

    Fifth Circuit issues initial stay (October 2021)

    On October 8, 2021, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary stay against Pitman's order. This was a per curiam decision, so the order was issued by the court and not by an individual judge. The table below lists the judges who heard the case and the president that appointed the judge.[25]

    United States v. Texas preliminary stay ruling
    Judge Appointed by
    James Ho Donald Trump Republican Party
    Catharina Haynes George W. Bush Republican Party
    Carl Stewart Bill Clinton Democratic Party

    Fifth Circuit issues stay pending appeal (October 2021)

    On October 8, 2021, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay against Pitman's order pending appeal by a 2-1 decision. The table below lists the judges who heard the case, their ruling, and the president that appointed the judge.[25]

    United States v. Texas stay ruling
    Judge Ruling Appointed by
    James Ho Majority Donald Trump Republican Party
    Catharina Haynes Majority George W. Bush Republican Party
    Carl Stewart Dissent Bill Clinton Democratic Party

    Aftermath

    Texas Supreme Court rules that suit against licensing agencies cannot proceed

    On March 11, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that state agencies could not enforce SB8 and thus could not be defendants in the case. Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd delivered the opinion of the court. He wrote, "Senate Bill 8 provides that its requirements may be enforced by a private civil action, that no state official may bring or participate as a party in any such action, that such an action is the exclusive means to enforce the requirements, and that these restrictions apply notwithstanding any other law. Based on these provisions, we conclude that Texas law does not grant the state-agency executives named as defendants in this case any authority to enforce the act’s requirements, either directly or indirectly."[26] Steve Vladeck, a professor at The University of Texas School of Law, wrote that "[t]he providers' suit against state defendants is now effectively over" following Boyd's ruling.[27]

    On January 17, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the Texas Supreme Court for clarity over several issues raised in the Supreme Court ruling. In the panel's ruling, Judge Edith Jones wrote, "The unresolved questions of state law must be certified to the Texas Supreme Court . . . With no limit placed by the Supreme Court’s remand, this court may utilize the ordinary appellate tools at our disposal to address the case—consistent with the Court’s opinion." Jones was joined in her ruling by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Stephen Higginson wrote, "This further, second-guessing redundancy, without time limit, deepens my concern that justice delayed is justice denied, here impeding relief ordered by the Supreme Court."[28]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposes gun legislation modeled on SB8

    On December 10, 2021, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said he would pursue gun legislation similar to SB 8 following the court's ruling. He said the following in a statement posted to Twitter:[29]

    “ I am outraged by yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas's ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas's scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade. But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people's lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm's way.


    I have directed my staff to work with the Legislature and the Attorney General on a bill that would create a right of action allowing private citizens to seek injuctive relief, and statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney's fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California. If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that.[9]

    		”

    Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), the author of SB 8, said the following when asked about Newsom's statement:[30]

    “ I would tell Gov. Newsom good luck with that. If California takes that route, they’ll find that California gun owners will violate the law knowing that they’ll be sued and knowing that the Supreme Court has their back because the right to keep and bear arms is clearly in the Constitution, and the courts have clearly and consistently upheld it.[9] ”

    Cases related to abortion in the October 2021 SCOTUS term

    SCOTUS heard three cases related to abortion during its October 2021 term. Two of those cases (United States v. Texas and Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson) posed questions relating to a Texas abortion law. The other (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) posed a question related to a Mississippi abortion law. Arguments in the Texas cases took place in November and argument took place in the Mississippi case was held in December.

    The sections below detail each case heard by SCOTUS during this term, including background on the case and the question presented to the court.

    Mississippi

    See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    This case directly challenged previous SCOTUS decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The argument took place on December 1, 2021. SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on May 17. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.


    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The law, enacted March 19, 2018, prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).[31]
  • The questions presented: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."[2]
  • The outcome: The court held that there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled the court's previous decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992).

    • Texas

    See also: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas (2021)

    These cases questioned the legality of Texas' abortion law S.B. 8 and whether the federal government had standing to sue the state to block enforcement. The arguments took place on November 1, 2021. SCOTUS agreed to hear the two cases on October 22. Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. United States v. Texas came via direct appeal by the federal government.

    Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Texas law S.B. 8 restricted abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law, meaning private citizens, including citizens residing outside of the state of Texas, to bring civil actions against individuals for aiding a patient with getting an abortion. The bill did not authorize state officials to enforce the law, nor bring criminal proceedings, precluding judicial review. Whole Woman's Health et al, a group of Texas abortion providers challenged the law, alleging that it violated the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), establishing the constitutional right to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability approximately 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The petitioners also challenged the state law's provision that it was to be enforced by private citizens through civil suits. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The question presented: "[W]hether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions."[2]
  • The outcome: The court ruled 8-1 that abortion providers may file suit in federal court against certain Texas executive officials to prevent them from enforcing provisions of S.B. 8 against abortion providers; it further held by a 5-4 vote that the abortion providers cannot bring suit against state judicial officials to prevent private lawsuits from being tried.[1]


    • United States v. Texas

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether the federal government has the right to challenge Texas state law S.B. 8 in federal court.
  • The question presented: "May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced."[2]
  • The outcome: In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the case and allowed enforcement of S.B. 8 to continue.[1]


    • October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[32]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[33] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[34]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "United States v. Texas: Per curiam," decided December 10, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 21-588: Question Presented," accessed October 25, 2021 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content
    3. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Whole Woman's Health et al v. Jackson et al: EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO VACATE STAYS OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS," August 30, 2021
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Texas abortion ban goes into effect after justices fail to act," September 1, 2021
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Abortion providers ask court to block Texas ban on abortions beginning at six weeks of pregnancy," August 30, 2021
    6. ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, United States v. Texas, decided October 6, 2021
    7. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "United States v. Texas - Application to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction Issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit," accessed October 25, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "United States v. Texas - On Application to Vacate Stay and Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment," accessed October 25, 2021
    9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 1, 2021
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 1, 2021
    12. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Practice Pointer: Digging into DIGs," April 25, 2019
    13. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Statement by President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Decision on Texas SB8," December 10, 2021
    14. ↑ Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas, "SEN. CRUZ ISSUES STATEMENT ON SCOTUS VICTORY FOR TEXAS’ PRO-LIFE LAW," December 10, 2021
    15. ↑ American Center for Law & Justice, "Supreme Court Rules on Texas Abortion Case," December 10, 2021
    16. ↑ National Review, "More on Supreme Court’s Ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson," December 10, 2021
    17. ↑ Center for Reproductive Rights, "U.S. Supreme Court Fails to Block Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and Vigilante Scheme," December 10, 2021
    18. ↑ Constitutional Accountability Center, "RELEASE: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Constitution by Allowing Texas to Continue Violating Right to Abortion While Permitting Limited Court Challenge," December 10, 2021
    19. ↑ National Review, "The Texas Heartbeat Act and Severability," November 4, 2021
    20. ↑ The New Yorker, "The Supreme Court Wonders Where the Texas Abortion Law Might Lead," November 3, 2021
    21. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "The Texas Abortion Case That Isn’t," October 31, 2021
    22. ↑ The Washington Post, "Opinion: The Texas case is not just about abortion. All sorts of rights are at stake." November 1, 2021
    23. ↑ Constitutional Accountability Center, "United States v. Texas (S.B. 8 litigation)" accessed November 17, 2021
    24. ↑ Court Listener, "United States v. Texas ," accessed November 17, 2021
    25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Courthouse News, "Fifth Circuit allows Texas abortion ban to remain in effect," October 14, 2021
    26. ↑ Texas Courts, "Whole Women's Health v. Jackson," accessed March 14, 2022
    27. ↑ Twitter, "Steve Vladeck on March 11, 2022," accessed March 14, 2022
    28. ↑ Politico, "Appeals court detours Texas abortion ban case to state Supreme Court," January 17, 2022
    29. ↑ Twitter, "Gavin Newsom on December 10, 2021," accessed December 14, 2021
    30. ↑ The Texas Tribune, "Texas abortion law author reacts to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pledge to do the same thing with guns: 'Good luck,'" December 13, 2021
    31. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade," May 17, 2021
    32. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    33. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    34. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_v._Texas_(2021)&oldid=8891776"