What happened in the Supreme Court’s Texas abortion law hearing

Justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers, but not the Biden administration, to challenge the Texas law

The Supreme Court in hearing oral arguments on Texas’ restrictive law banning most abortions after about six weeks appeared inclined to allow providers, but not the Biden administration, to bring a challenge.

For nearly three hours on Monday, justices heard two sets of arguments, one from Texas abortion providers and another from the Department of Justice.

Two conservative justices seemed open to providers’ arguments that they should be allowed to challenge the abortion ban in federal court. However, a few conservative justices seemed less convinced by the Biden administration’s arguments and Chief Justice John Roberts said it was ‘as broad as can be’.

Justice Elena Kagan, supported by some of her counterparts, suggested that the high court could let abortion providers proceed with their lawsuit and in doing so prevent having to decide on the more complex Justice Department case.

The oral arguments took place two months after the court ruled 5-4 to let Texas’s law go into effect. Remarks from the majority of justices on Monday represent a possible shift from the September ruling.

Effective September 1, the law prohibits abortions after a heartbeat can be detected, which typically occurs six weeks into pregnancy. It offers no exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest and allows individuals to sue doctors or anyone who aids in an aborting being performed.

On Monday, the justices heard from Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights representing a coalition of Texas abortion providers, Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, and US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on behalf of the Justice Department.

The justices kept their review to the novel structure of the law, which bars state officials from being able to enforce it, and instead lets private citizens sue.

Questions from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in the 5-4 ruling, suggested that they believe the novel structure justifies allowing abortion providers to challenge the law.

Kavanaugh said it could lead to closing a loophole, and Barrett said the structure was designed to prevent abortion providers from bringing a ‘full constitutional defense’.

Stone argued that neither the providers’ nor the Biden administration’s cases ‘presents a case or controversy’ and that both should be dismissed.

The justices do not have a deadline to come to a decision.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.