Chief Justice Roberts, 3 other dissenters slam colleagues for hastily rewarding Texas 'bounty hunter' abortion ban scheme


A sharply divided Supreme Court early Thursday said it will not block a new Texas law that deputizes any Texan to enforce a six-week ban on abortions. Five justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — explained in a brief, unsigned majority opinion that the abortion advocates asking for an emergency stay "raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," but they were unable to untangle the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" raised by the law.
The four dissenters — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — argued in separate rebuttals that their five colleagues, without any real debate, were rewarding Texas lawmakers for inventing a novel scheme to stomp on decades of Supreme Court precedent.
"The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented," Roberts wrote, and he would have granted "preliminary relief" at least until "the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner." Instead, the court allowed the law to take effect before lower courts weighed in, "without ordinary merits briefing, and without oral argument."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Sotomayor was more direct, calling the court's decision "stunning" and saying the five-justice majority "opted to bury their heads in the sand" while Texas "flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents" by "outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry." Essentially, "the Texas Legislature has deputized the state's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures," she wrote, and the court is rewarding this "breathtaking act of defiance — of the Constitution, of this court's precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas."
Breyer wrote that he doesn't see how Texas' enforcement-delegation scheme "should make a critical difference," since it still "threatens to invade a constitutional right."
Kagan said the court should not have greenlighted a "patently unconstitutional law" with barely any discussion and "less than 72 hours' thought." The five justices gave only "cursory" review to the submitted documents, and "barely bothers to explain its conclusion — that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail," she added. "In all these ways, the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this court's shadow-docket decisionmaking — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." You can read all the opinions.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.
-
Quiz of The Week: 5 – 11 July
Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?
-
How many people are working illegally in the UK?
The Explainer Government vows 'nationwide blitz' on illicit workforce believed to number in the hundreds of thousands
-
The week's best photos
In Pictures A devastating flood, a hungry manatee, and more
-
Trump U-turns on weapons to Ukraine
Speed Read Unhappy with Putin, Trump decides the US will go back to arming Ukraine against Russia's attacks
-
Ukraine scrambles as Trump cuts weapons deliveries
Speed Read The halting of weapons shipments was driven by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, a Ukraine funding skeptic
-
IAEA: Iran could enrich uranium 'within months'
Speed Read The chief United Nations nuclear inspector, Rafael Grossi, says Iran could be enriching uranium again soon
-
One year after mass protests, why are Kenyans taking to the streets again?
today's big question More than 60 protesters died during demonstrations in 2024
-
Iran nukes program set back months, early intel suggests
Speed Read A Pentagon assessment says US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites only set the program back by months, not years. This contradicts President Donald Trump's claim.
-
Trump says Iran and Israel agreed to ceasefire
Speed Read This followed a night of Israeli airstrikes on Tehran and multiple waves of missiles fired by Iran
-
Israel strikes Iran, killing military and nuclear chiefs
Speed Read Israeli officials said the attack was a 'preemptive' strike on Iran's nuclear program
-
Israel deports Thunberg after seizing Gaza aid boat
speed read The Swedish activist was delivering food and medical aid to Palestine, highlighting the growing humanitarian crisis there