The Consequences

The Supreme Court’s decision on S.B. 8 has demonstrated many things. First, it is pretty clear that their intention is likely to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade when it comes onto their docket in the future. But whether this should happen or not is a matter of political opinion and besides the point. 

What is most concerning is that the 5th Circuit and Supreme Court ignored their duty to provide unbiased judicial review and “bent over backwards” (Stone) to ensure the law would go into place.

As Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissent (which should be read in its entirety), “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to … evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand… the Texas Legislature has deputized the State’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures.” 

Sotomayor continues, “Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined to act because, in short, the State’s gambit worked … This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.” 

When did it become acceptable for states to circumvent Constitutional law by mobilizing private citizens as law enforcement? By acting in this way, the Supreme Court has telegraphed to state legislatures that partisan theatrics can prevail over impartial judgement if they play enough games, opening the door to pass other unconstitutional legislation using the same loopholes.  

It’s a slap in the face to our judicial procedures, it sets a horrible precedent, and it’s bad for the rule of law.

And Stone further emphasizes that this should be concerning to all citizens, no matter what their political affiliation is. “Imagine if a state passed a law that said, ‘If you aid or abet someone exercising their freedom of religion… or… buying a firearm, then you’re subject to a $10,000 fine and you have to pay the other side’s attorney fees.’”

Now, if one of those cases were to ever happen, it’s unlikely the Supreme Court would act in the same way. Except that just proves that this decision is not the result of their interpretation of the law, but their political interests.

When the bill deals with an issue like abortion, often passions run so high that it can be difficult to focus on anything other than shouting over the pandemonium.

But in our political climate, now more than ever it’s important to actively question our governing and legal systems — even if they align with our partisan beliefs — because they are the foundations of democratic society. When we turn a blind eye to efforts to undermine these systems, justice is sacrificed at the altar of politics, and the seedlings of the disintegration of our democracy are planted.