Here's how the Justice Dept. could sue Texas for violating civil rights: Prof. Laurence Tribe

[alwaysinasnit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/05/justice-department-stop-texas-abortion-law-laurence-tribe/

The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.

Of course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

snip...

Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.

The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?

snip...

[Hoyt]

1. I'd bet money that the first case where a provider has to pay will be decided in

provider’s favor, in essence woman’s favor. But wouldn’t bet a lot and it will be ugly until cases are decided in providers’ favor.

[littlemissmartypants]

2. Seems to me, that they're betting, erroneously, that

Women won't have balls enough to stand up to the intimidation. And they're dead wrong. Women are pissed and so are a lot of men. They've opened a Pandora's Box of epic proportions.

[littlemissmartypants]

3. I wish we had a woman for attorney general. nt

[Jon King]

4. There will never be even one case filed.

Its a scare tactic. They do not intend to bring any cases. The first case would result in cross suits, medical records suits, civil rights suits, and expose the law as a sham.

[NJCher]

8. What you say about

Cross suits—do you mean counter claim suits? I read here but did not verify that counter claims are prohibited under this law.

You may very well have a point regarding the other two types of suits.

However, the rest of it? They absolutely intended to let those zealots have at it with women. It is my understanding that they have lawyers in place to help with the suits.

Haven’t verified that last sentence with a second source.

[carpetbagger]

5. If the courts don't recognize abortion as a civil right, how does this work?

[alwaysinasnit]

7. from the article...

For example, Section 242 of the federal criminal code makes it a crime for those who, “under color of law,” willfully deprive individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

This statute — originally designed to go after the Ku Klux Klan — fits the Texas situation perfectly: The bounty seekers, entitled under the Texas law to collect penalties of at least $10,000, have been made, in effect, private attorneys general of Texas. They act “under color of state law,” and unless and until Roe v. Wade is overruled, they unmistakably intend to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.

In addition, Section 241 of the federal criminal code makes it an even more serious crime for “two or more persons” to agree to “oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime may be committed even by individuals not found to be acting “under color of law” but as purely private vigilantes, as long as they’re acting in concert with others.

Again, the Texas scheme could hardly be more perfectly designed to match the language of that section. The whole point of the Texas law, after all, is to intimidate abortion providers and others by threatening them with penalties of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, in the form of bounties to be paid to the vigilante. Even jurists who believe the Constitution does not protect abortion rights might be given pause by this seizure of private property, with unlimited penalties not tied to any actual harm suffered by the bounty hunter.

[carpetbagger]

9. That sounds twice as bad.

If the court overturns this law without affirming Casey, all they've done is to allow states to outlaw abortion (which Texas would immediately do), and now they've just kneecapped whole areas of corporate and environmental law that protects regular people who don't otherwise have the ability to rectify criminal misbehavior.

Tribe's taking a knife to Bork's gunfight. He needs to instead write an editorial saying that a court that overturns Roe should, in toto, not be considered an appropriate body to make legitimate precedent. Stamp the Roberts court as an occupation.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Opinion: What the Justice Department should do to stop the Texas abortion law

Using the KKK Act would be fun to watch

Link to tweet

Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.

The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?

For example, Section 242 of the federal criminal code makes it a crime for those who, “under color of law,” willfully deprive individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

This statute — originally designed to go after the Ku Klux Klan — fits the Texas situation perfectly: The bounty seekers, entitled under the Texas law to collect penalties of at least $10,000, have been made, in effect, private attorneys general of Texas. They act “under color of state law,” and unless and until Roe v. Wade is overruled, they unmistakably intend to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.

In addition, Section 241 of the federal criminal code makes it an even more serious crime for “two or more persons” to agree to “oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime may be committed even by individuals not found to be acting “under color of law” but as purely private vigilantes, as long as they’re acting in concert with others

.

[MichMan]

10. Didn't Tribe advise Pres. Biden he had legal grounds to issue the last eviction moratorium?