1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,799
Speaker 1: The Justice Department stepped in on Thursday in an effort

3
00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:16,720
Speaker 1: to block the country's strictest abortion law in Texas, setting

4
00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:19,800
Speaker 1: up a high stakes legal battle after the Supreme Court

5
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:24,079
Speaker 1: refused to step in. Here's Attorney General Merrick Garland. The

6
00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:30,120
Speaker 1: obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is

7
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:34,959
Speaker 1: to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting

8
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: judicial review for as long as possible. The Texas law

9
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:43,280
Speaker 1: is the strictest ban on abortion since it was legalized

10
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 1: in the US a half century ago, banning abortions after

11
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 1: about six weeks, with no exception for rape or incest.

12
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: My guest is Leah Littman, a professor of constitutional law

13
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,480
Speaker 1: at the University of Michigan Law School. Why do you

14
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:01,240
Speaker 1: think the Conservative Justice is a out a law which

15
00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: contradicts their precedence to go into effect? Do you buy

16
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:09,720
Speaker 1: their explanation? So? What I don't buy is that the

17
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:15,280
Speaker 1: mere existence of some procedural uncertainties was enough to leave

18
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:19,119
Speaker 1: them not to actually enjoin the law. The Supreme Court

19
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:25,080
Speaker 1: has enjoined laws even in the face of considerable procedural uncertainty. So,

20
00:01:25,160 --> 00:01:28,200
Speaker 1: for example, when the Court enjoined New York's response to

21
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:32,160
Speaker 1: the coronavirus, the response that joined the New York policy

22
00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:35,280
Speaker 1: wasn't even an effect, but the Supreme Court said, well,

23
00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:38,680
Speaker 1: it might go back into effect in the future. So

24
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:43,440
Speaker 1: there procedural uncertainty wasn't enough to stop the Court from

25
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: granting relief to parties where it believed their constitutional rights

26
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,400
Speaker 1: were being infringed. I do think the fact that this

27
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:55,600
Speaker 1: case involved abortion did affect the justices decisions and actions.

28
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 1: I think if this statute was written in a way

29
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:04,880
Speaker 1: that allowed anyone to sue people who owned unlicensed handguns

30
00:02:05,000 --> 00:02:08,440
Speaker 1: rather than allowing anyone to see abortion providers, I don't

31
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:10,959
Speaker 1: think the procedural questions in this case would have stopped

32
00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court from enjoining that law. But is the

33
00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 1: way the law was crafted, with private people basically playing

34
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:23,799
Speaker 1: bounty hunters. Is that mechanism what seems to be causing

35
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:28,600
Speaker 1: difficulty in the courts. Yes, absolutely so. The fact that

36
00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:32,520
Speaker 1: the state law authorizes private citizens but not see its

37
00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:36,880
Speaker 1: citizens to sue to enforce the law was deliberately designed

38
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:40,520
Speaker 1: both to create uncertainties about who could be sued in

39
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:42,880
Speaker 1: order to prevent the law from going into effect and

40
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:46,080
Speaker 1: possibly prevents the law from being challenged at all. My

41
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,480
Speaker 1: point is only that the mere existance of some procedural

42
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:54,040
Speaker 1: uncertainty on other issues and on other topics hasn't stopped

43
00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:57,839
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court before. Some legal experts are calling this

44
00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Texas a ail mary pass, a delaying tactic.

45
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,440
Speaker 1: Do you agree? I think, based on the history and

46
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:09,400
Speaker 1: practice of the federal government suing states when they are

47
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:13,679
Speaker 1: engaged in unlawful conducts, particularly unlawful conduct that is existent

48
00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:16,200
Speaker 1: with the demands of the federal program, I don't think

49
00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:19,680
Speaker 1: this is some completely outlandish tactic out of left field.

50
00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:22,079
Speaker 1: I think it has a very strong basis and law

51
00:03:22,160 --> 00:03:24,239
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily need it too like to succeed. But

52
00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:26,520
Speaker 1: I think it was right for the federal government pilates.

53
00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:29,680
Speaker 1: What are the grounds that the Justice Department is suing

54
00:03:29,720 --> 00:03:32,640
Speaker 1: Texas under? So the United States is arguing that it

55
00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:36,200
Speaker 1: can sue Texas for really two distinct reasons. The first

56
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,800
Speaker 1: set of reasons are because the Texas law interferes with

57
00:03:39,880 --> 00:03:43,600
Speaker 1: access to abortion and is therefore in violation of the

58
00:03:43,600 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 1: Supreme Court cases, saying that people have the right to

59
00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:49,760
Speaker 1: opinion an abortion before viability. And what the United States

60
00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:53,520
Speaker 1: is asserting is that it can effectively raise the rights

61
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:56,880
Speaker 1: and raise the injury to the people who are denied

62
00:03:56,920 --> 00:03:59,960
Speaker 1: access to abortion in Texas right now. And it can

63
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,600
Speaker 1: do that because the state has deliberately sought to insulate

64
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:07,640
Speaker 1: itself from judicial review and enforced and an act in

65
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 1: unconstitutional law. So the United States says that only are

66
00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:14,000
Speaker 1: we asserting the rights of people who are denied access

67
00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 1: to abortion, we're also enforcing the supremacy of federal law

68
00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:21,800
Speaker 1: and the supremacy of the Constitution. And that is an

69
00:04:21,800 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: interest that we the United States, as the federal government

70
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: found by the Constitution and the supremacy of federal law

71
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:30,960
Speaker 1: can rate. The second set of reasons are that the

72
00:04:31,080 --> 00:04:34,200
Speaker 1: Texas law interferes with the ability of the United States

73
00:04:34,240 --> 00:04:37,360
Speaker 1: to carry out a variety of federal programs that require

74
00:04:37,560 --> 00:04:41,920
Speaker 1: federal contractors or federal officers in certain circumstances to assist

75
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:45,400
Speaker 1: people in obtaining abortions if they want them, so, for example,

76
00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 1: people who are part of the Federal Job Corps, people

77
00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 1: who are in federal prison, people in the military, various

78
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:55,640
Speaker 1: federal regulations or policies say, if people in the federal

79
00:04:55,640 --> 00:04:59,360
Speaker 1: governments custody or in the federal programs desire and our

80
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:02,480
Speaker 1: constitution only entitled to have an abortion, then the federal

81
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:05,599
Speaker 1: government has to assist them in getting one. And so

82
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,680
Speaker 1: the state law that's possibly subjecting those federal officers and

83
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 1: federal contractors to liability is interfering with federal programs, and

84
00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:16,520
Speaker 1: that's something that states can't do. Do you see any

85
00:05:16,560 --> 00:05:22,200
Speaker 1: procedural issues that Texas might raise, for example, Standing Texas

86
00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:24,880
Speaker 1: is absolutely going to raise a host of arguments about

87
00:05:24,960 --> 00:05:28,719
Speaker 1: why the federal court can't or shouldn't hear this case.

88
00:05:28,920 --> 00:05:31,359
Speaker 1: You know, one thing they will argue is that the

89
00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:34,599
Speaker 1: United States hasn't truly been injured and that the United

90
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:38,440
Speaker 1: States can't assert the rights of individual people who want

91
00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:42,480
Speaker 1: to obtain abortions. And I guess what I would say is, yes,

92
00:05:42,839 --> 00:05:45,839
Speaker 1: maybe it's not typically the case that the federal government

93
00:05:45,880 --> 00:05:49,080
Speaker 1: is bringing lawsuits to enforce or vindicate people's rights. But

94
00:05:49,120 --> 00:05:52,560
Speaker 1: it's also not typically the case that states deliberately engineer

95
00:05:52,680 --> 00:05:56,120
Speaker 1: their laws to deprive people of their constitutional rights and

96
00:05:56,440 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 1: makes the law unchallengeable in court. So yes, lawsuit is

97
00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:03,839
Speaker 1: new in some respects, but it's new because the underlying

98
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: Texas law that it's speaking to challenge is itself so

99
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:09,720
Speaker 1: unprecedented in novels. The second set of interest, however, the

100
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:13,560
Speaker 1: idea that this Texas law interferes with federal policies and programs.

101
00:06:13,800 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 1: That's pretty well established that the United States could do

102
00:06:17,200 --> 00:06:21,440
Speaker 1: when state law is interfering or undermining some federal program

103
00:06:21,600 --> 00:06:26,240
Speaker 1: or potentially interfering with federal officers or federal contractors. We're

104
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:30,080
Speaker 1: assuming that this case will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

105
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 1: How do you think the justices will align? I mean,

106
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:35,120
Speaker 1: I think, based on what they did in the abortion

107
00:06:35,120 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 1: providers lawsuit, as well as their hostility to the abortion right,

108
00:06:38,839 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 1: I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that the

109
00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:44,839
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will not allow the United States to get

110
00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:48,120
Speaker 1: this abjunction against the Texas law. But that's not because

111
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:52,360
Speaker 1: the United States isn't right on the law. It's because, again,

112
00:06:52,440 --> 00:06:55,640
Speaker 1: this Texas law is so unique that there hasn't been

113
00:06:56,080 --> 00:06:59,800
Speaker 1: a lawsuit under precisely these circumstances that the Supreme Court

114
00:06:59,839 --> 00:07:02,160
Speaker 1: might feel compelled to follow, and in part because of that,

115
00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:05,760
Speaker 1: their skepticism of the underlying constitutional right might lead them

116
00:07:05,880 --> 00:07:08,839
Speaker 1: to not permit this lawsuit to go forward. What do

117
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:14,080
Speaker 1: you think of constitutional law scholar Larry Tribe suggestion that

118
00:07:14,120 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 1: the Justice Department could use a section of the Criminal

119
00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:20,280
Speaker 1: Code designed to go after the ku Klux Klan to

120
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: prosecute individuals who are trying to enforce the Texas abortion law.

121
00:07:24,840 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: So that's possible. There are some procedural issues with bringing

122
00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 1: in that case, for example, whether the private individuals are

123
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:36,280
Speaker 1: persons acting undercolor of state law for purposes of the

124
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:39,960
Speaker 1: KKK Act. And more importantly, I think even if the

125
00:07:40,080 --> 00:07:45,280
Speaker 1: United States were to win a lawsuit against some individuals

126
00:07:45,360 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 1: who might enforce the law, that wouldn't be a lawsuit

127
00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:51,160
Speaker 1: that resulted in the court ruling that no one in

128
00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: any capacity could enforce the law. That's what the abortion

129
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 1: providers are trying to get in this case that the

130
00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:00,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court hasn't allowed to proceed. And merely doing you know,

131
00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:04,840
Speaker 1: one individual, let's say John Doe, from doing to enforce

132
00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: the Texas law wouldn't prevent Jane Doe or any other

133
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 1: John Doe from enforcing it. So merely getting a lawsuit

134
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:16,560
Speaker 1: saying John Doe would be in violation of the KKK

135
00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:20,120
Speaker 1: asked if he brought a lawsuit to enforce the statute,

136
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:23,120
Speaker 1: might not prevent other people from trying to enforce the

137
00:08:23,160 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 1: Texas Statute. I want to turn to the state court

138
00:08:25,920 --> 00:08:30,239
Speaker 1: proceedings for a moment, because abortion rights advocates are going

139
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 1: to state courts in Texas. They're seeking temporary court orders

140
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:38,679
Speaker 1: against the group Texas Right to Life, and some activists

141
00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:43,480
Speaker 1: who have been vocal. Is that a valuable effort. It's valuable,

142
00:08:43,520 --> 00:08:47,120
Speaker 1: but it's not going to bring back abortion access in Texas.

143
00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:50,560
Speaker 1: And we know that because the abortion providers have already

144
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 1: obtained temporary restraining orders against Texas Right to Life and

145
00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 1: a few individuals. But as I was saying, what the

146
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:02,479
Speaker 1: temporary restraining orders do is they only protect that one organization,

147
00:09:02,679 --> 00:09:06,280
Speaker 1: Texas Right to Life, or that one individual, John Doe,

148
00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 1: from bringing a lawsuit. They don't prevent any number of

149
00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:13,960
Speaker 1: other individuals from doing the abortion providers, and so they

150
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:17,679
Speaker 1: don't actually allow the abortion providers to reopen and start

151
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:21,000
Speaker 1: offering abortions more than six weeks after someone's last period.

152
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,079
Speaker 1: And we know that again because the abortion providers pay

153
00:09:24,160 --> 00:09:26,320
Speaker 1: these arrows and yet they are still not able to

154
00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:31,160
Speaker 1: offer abortion. I've read that the abortion rights advocates are

155
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,200
Speaker 1: hoping that this will be a vehicle for them to

156
00:09:34,280 --> 00:09:38,040
Speaker 1: get a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court striking down

157
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:43,440
Speaker 1: parts of the law under the Texas Constitution. Is that possible, yes,

158
00:09:43,559 --> 00:09:46,160
Speaker 1: But that requires the plaintiffs to be able to get

159
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:50,040
Speaker 1: a case to the Texas Supreme Court where the court

160
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,080
Speaker 1: could actually prevent the state from enforcing the law. And

161
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:58,520
Speaker 1: the same procedural issues that the United States Supreme Court

162
00:09:58,600 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 1: identified with the case brought in federal court would also

163
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:05,200
Speaker 1: apply in state court. And just given who's on the

164
00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:08,920
Speaker 1: Texas Supreme Court, I don't really see that going much

165
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 1: better for the providers. Possible it would, but the same

166
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:14,840
Speaker 1: issues that applied in the federal court proceeding would apply

167
00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:18,560
Speaker 1: in the state court proceedings. What impact does the Fifth

168
00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:23,720
Speaker 1: Circuit's decision standing the stay have. So the Fifth Circuit

169
00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:26,960
Speaker 1: decision basically thus made official what had already been going on.

170
00:10:27,080 --> 00:10:29,160
Speaker 1: So what the Fifth Circuit had done was put on

171
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:32,280
Speaker 1: hold the district court proceedings that were on the precipice

172
00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 1: of considering whether to enjoin the Texas law, and before

173
00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:39,400
Speaker 1: the law went into effects, the Fifth Circuit had issued

174
00:10:39,400 --> 00:10:42,839
Speaker 1: a temporary or administrative stay, putting those proceedings on hold,

175
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,960
Speaker 1: which prevented the district court from considering the provider's request

176
00:10:47,000 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 1: for an injunction. Now, I Fifth Circuits just kind of

177
00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:53,520
Speaker 1: made that official. They issued an opinion saying, yes, these

178
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:57,840
Speaker 1: proceedings are stay, that is, they're put on poles and

179
00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:01,200
Speaker 1: we the Fifth Circuit will determine and whether the disrecord

180
00:11:01,280 --> 00:11:04,079
Speaker 1: was correct to allow the abortion providers to sue various

181
00:11:04,120 --> 00:11:07,439
Speaker 1: state officials, or whether instead those officials are immuned from

182
00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:10,040
Speaker 1: the lawsuits. I want to get your reaction to what

183
00:11:10,200 --> 00:11:14,200
Speaker 1: Texas Governor Greg Abbott said. He said that women who

184
00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 1: are raped still have six weeks to get an abortion,

185
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:20,520
Speaker 1: and also that Texas would work tirelessly to get rapists

186
00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:23,440
Speaker 1: off the street. I'm not even sure where to start

187
00:11:23,480 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 1: with how absurd that statement is versus the law applies

188
00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 1: basically from six weeks from the date from a person's

189
00:11:30,440 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: last period, so it's not six weeks after gestation, it

190
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:38,040
Speaker 1: is six weeks after your last period. That might mean

191
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:41,760
Speaker 1: it is impossible for tests to detect whether someone is

192
00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:45,959
Speaker 1: pregnant in that window, and that would make it prohibitively

193
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:49,320
Speaker 1: difficult to get an abortion during that window, and Texas

194
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:53,880
Speaker 1: also imposes a bunch of other requirements on people, multiple appointments,

195
00:11:54,080 --> 00:11:57,079
Speaker 1: waiting periods, and so on that could easily push someone

196
00:11:57,120 --> 00:12:01,520
Speaker 1: outside of the six weeks from their last period window,

197
00:12:01,920 --> 00:12:04,480
Speaker 1: even if they tried to get the abortion as soon

198
00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:07,560
Speaker 1: as they are able to. Second, is the idea that

199
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:09,680
Speaker 1: Texas is all of a sudden going to be able

200
00:12:09,720 --> 00:12:12,880
Speaker 1: to prohibit rate raises questions one, why haven't they tried

201
00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:16,080
Speaker 1: to do that before? And seconds, That's just not how

202
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,520
Speaker 1: it works. You know, Texas can say all of it wants,

203
00:12:19,520 --> 00:12:22,480
Speaker 1: but rape is still a problem, and sexual assault is

204
00:12:22,480 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 1: still a problem in this country, and Texas isn't going

205
00:12:24,640 --> 00:12:26,560
Speaker 1: to be able to eradicate it just by the governor

206
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:30,720
Speaker 1: announcing that he would like to. Does this indicate that

207
00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 1: anti abortion activists have finally found and crafted a mechanism,

208
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:40,960
Speaker 1: a law that can stop abortions, and that you know,

209
00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:44,480
Speaker 1: other states are now going to follow them. I would

210
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:48,040
Speaker 1: frame it in slightly different terms. I would say anti

211
00:12:48,040 --> 00:12:52,400
Speaker 1: abortion ASTs activists have finally arrived at a law and

212
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 1: finally constructed a Supreme court that will allow them to

213
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 1: ban abortion, possibly without the Supreme Court ever having to

214
00:13:00,040 --> 00:13:02,719
Speaker 1: formally over rule gro versus way. Thanks for being on

215
00:13:02,760 --> 00:13:05,760
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Laws Show. Leah. That's Professor Lea Littman of

216
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:08,920
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School. And that's it for

217
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:11,880
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Laws Show. I'm June Grosso

218
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:13,600
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg