两个月后的第二天允许德克萨斯为了几乎完全禁止堕胎，最高法院周一公开表示怀疑州法律SB8担心其前所未有的执行机制，以及对其他州限制宪法权利的尝试意味着什么。

德克萨斯州的法律禁止怀孕六周后堕胎，委托执行普通公民，而不是政府官员，他们可以对任何“帮助或教唆”非法程序的人提起民事诉讼。它的州支持者故意想避开联邦法院的审查，因为他们知道这样的禁令违反了受宪法保护的堕胎权。

A大多数法官在周一三个多小时的口头辩论中，这表明德克萨斯州的堕胎服务提供者有充分的理由要求联邦法院暂停SB8。

“有一个漏洞在这里被利用了，或者在这里被利用了，”正义布雷特·卡瓦诺他指的是1908年最高法院的一个案件——单方面的Young案，该案为人们在联邦法院起诉州官员涉嫌违反宪法开创了先例。

卡瓦诺和大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特都在9月份投票支持五大法官多数同意SB8生效，他们对一个州可以将法律的执行外包给公民以试图规避先例的想法表示特别不安。

“所以问题变成了，我们是否应该扩大单方面年轻的原则，从本质上来说，填补这个漏洞?”卡瓦诺说。他补充说，该案的“全面调查”表明了这样的结果。

巴雷特告诉堕胎服务提供者的律师马克·赫伦:“我认为《单方面的年轻人》中有利于你的语言。

目前还不清楚最高法院将多快对此案做出判决。德克萨斯州各地的诊所表示，他们已经停止大多数堕胎护理服务当法律之战结束时。

如果法官站在德克萨斯州堕胎提供者一边，他们可以将案件退回联邦地区法院进行诉讼，或者法院本身可以发布命令，随着诉讼的继续，阻止SB8。

得克萨斯州副检察长贾德·斯通坚持认为，州官员与SB8的执行无关，州法院是在逐案、逐原告的基础上对SB8提出质疑的适当场所。十四起州诉讼正在进行中。斯通说，这些个案最终可能会在联邦法院结案。

斯通说，请愿者希望“对法律本身SB8发出禁令”。“他们不能接受这一点，因为联邦法院不会发布针对法律的禁令，而是针对执法官员的禁令。也没有得克萨斯州的行政官员强制执行SB8，因此也不会禁止任何得克萨斯州的行政官员。”

杰奎琳·马丁/美联社

得克萨斯州众议员谢尔比·斯劳森(左)和得克萨斯州参议员安吉拉·帕克斯顿(右)听着.

埃琳娜·卡根法官直接针对得克萨斯州的论点，警告说，允许该州的计划继续存在，将公开邀请其他州规避其他不受欢迎的宪法权利。

“本质上，我们会像，你知道，我们是开放的，你是开放的。最高法院对此无能为力。枪支、同性婚姻、宗教权利，不管你不喜欢什么，尽管说吧，”她说。

首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨对公民无法先发制人地捍卫自己的宪法权利表示担忧，因为在个人提出要求之前，德克萨斯州的法律没有明确的执行者。

“这是一个任何人都有能力或能力去联邦法院的问题，因为没有人会冒着违反法规的风险，因为他们将面临(一大笔钱)的诉讼。在那种情况下，从事被禁止的行为需要很大的毅力。在这种制度下，只有采取被禁止的行为，你才能进入联邦法院，”罗伯茨说。

虽然许多法官确实对联邦政府对SB8的限制持开放态度，但对于他们的意见应该针对谁，或者联邦法院可以禁止谁，没有明确的共识。

“你要求什么救济?”卡根问赫伦。

“我们请求批准...针对德克萨斯州各地[州法院]书记员的诉讼开始或审理的禁令，以及针对州行政官员执行SB8的剩余权力的禁令救济，”赫伦回答道。

几位法官似乎不愿意命令法官或书记员仅仅做他们的工作，因为他们的工作本身并不是对抗性的。

索尼娅·索托马约尔法官建议，发布针对得克萨斯州司法部长的禁令可以有效地涵盖所有可能根据SB8提起诉讼的公民。索托马约尔坚称，他们与该州“行动一致”。

“为什么这些私人不会被认为是私人检察长?”克拉伦斯·托马斯法官说。“另一方面，有一件事似乎相当含蓄，那就是他们实际上是总检察长，如果不是法律指定的话，因为他们正在执行一项全州范围的政策。”

美国副检察长伊丽莎白·普洛加尔说，联邦法院可以针对德克萨斯州的任何“潜在私人原告”。“国家鼓励他们的行为，”她说。如果允许这种模式存在，“任何宪法权利都是不安全的”。

对其他宪法权利以及最高法院先例和权威的影响是卡瓦诺特别关注的，他可以在SB8的处置中发挥决定性作用。

他提到言论自由权、宗教自由和第二修正案权利可能受到威胁，他指的是一个保守的枪支组织提交的法庭之友简报，该组织担心支持SB8的决定。

“法庭之友简报的理论是，它可以很容易地在其他不赞成其他宪法权利的州复制，”卡瓦诺说。

大法官们似乎普遍不同意拜登政府的观点——在周一对SB8的另一次挑战中，他们认为联邦政府有全面的能力在联邦法院挑战歧视性的州法律。

“美国政府曾经宣称过‘公平’吗?”尼尔·戈鲁奇法官怀疑地想道。

“有没有美国可以做现在正在做的事情的例子?”托马斯问道。

预计法院将在未来几天或几周内发布快速裁决。

Supreme Court justices wary of Texas abortion ban enforcement scheme

Two months to the day afterallowing Texasto impose a near-total ban on abortions, the Supreme Court on Monday was openly skeptical ofstate law SB8over concerns about its unprecedented enforcement mechanism and what it could mean for other state attempts to limit constitutional rights.

The Texas law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy,delegates enforcementto everyday citizens -- rather than state officials -- who can file civil lawsuits against anyone who "aids or abets" an unlawful procedure. Its state sponsors deliberately intended to circumvent federal court review, knowing that such a ban on its face violatesconstitutionally-protected abortion rights.

Amajority of justices, during the more than three hours of oral arguments on Monday, signaled that Texas abortion providers have a strong case for asking federal courts to put SB8 on hold.

"There's a loophole that's been exploited here, or used here," JusticeBrett Kavanaughsaid, referring to a 1908 Supreme Court case -- Ex parte Young -- that established a precedent for people to sue state officials in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.

Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who both voted in September with the five-justice majority allowing SB8 to take effect, voiced particular discomfort with the idea that a state could outsource enforcement of a law to citizens in an attempt to circumvent precedent.

"So the question becomes, should we extend the principle of Ex parte Young to, in essence, close that loophole?" Kavanaugh said. He added that the "whole sweep" of the case suggested such an outcome.

"I think there is language in Ex parte Young that favors you," Barrett told the abortion providers' attorney Marc Hearron.

It was not clear how quickly the Supreme Court will hand down a decision in the case. Clinics across Texas have said they havediscontinued most abortion care serviceswhile the legal battle plays out.

If the justices side with the Texas abortion providers, they could return the case to a federal district court for proceedings, or the court itself could issue an order blocking SB8 as litigation continues.

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone insisted that state officials have nothing to do with SB8 enforcement and that state courts are the proper venues to litigate challenges to SB8 on a case by case, plaintiff by plaintiff, basis. Fourteen state suits are underway. Those individual cases could ultimately end up in federal court, Stone said.

Petitioners want "an injunction against SB8, the law, itself," said Stone. "They can't receive that because federal courts don't issue injunctions against laws but against officials enforcing laws. No Texas executive official enforces SB8 either, and so no Texas executive official may be enjoined."

Justice Elena Kagan took direct aim at Texas' argument, warning that allowing the state's scheme to stand would be an open invitation to other states to circumvent other disfavored constitutional rights.

"Essentially, we would be like, you know, we are open, you are open for business. There's nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don't like, go ahead," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the inability of citizens to preemptively defend their constitutional rights because the Texas law doesn't have a clear enforcer until an individual claim is made.

"It's a question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they'll be subject to suit for [a significant financial sum]. That -- that takes a lot of fortitude to undertake the prohibited conduct in that case. And under the system, it is only by undertaking the prohibited conduct that you can get into federal court," Roberts said.

While many justices did appear open to federal curbs on SB8, there was no clear consensus on who their opinion should target or who a federal court could enjoin.

"What relief are you requesting?" Kagan asked Hearron.

"We are requesting an... injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the [state court] clerks across the State of Texas, as well as injunctive relief against the state executive officials for their residual authority to enforce SB8," Hearron replied.

Several justices seemed disinclined to enjoin judges or clerks from simply doing their jobs, which are not inherently adversarial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that issuing an injunction against the attorney general of Texas could effectively cover all citizens who might bring lawsuits under SB8. They are "acting in concert" with the state, Sotomayor insisted.

"Why wouldn't these private individuals be considered private attorneys generals?" Justice Clarence Thomas said. "One thing that seems rather implicit on the other side is that they are in effect, if not in designation by law, attorneys generals because they are enforcing a statewide policy."

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a federal court could target any "potential private plaintiffs" in Texas. "The state incentivizes their conduct," she said. "No constitutional right is safe" if such a model is allowed to stand.

The implications for other constitutional rights and for Supreme Court precedents and authority were of particular concern to Kavanaugh, who could play a decisive role in disposition of SB8.

He cited free speech rights, freedom of religion, and Second Amendment rights, as potentially under threat, referring to an amicus brief filed by a conservative firearms group worried about a decision upholding SB8.

"The theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights," Kavanaugh said.

The justices seemed broadly disengaged with arguments by the Biden administration -- in a separate challenge to SB8 argued Monday -- that the federal government has sweeping ability to challenge a discriminatory state law in federal court.

"Has the U.S. government ever asserted 'equity'?" wondered Justice Neil Gorsuch skeptically.

"Is there any instance in which the U.S. can do what it's doing now?" questioned Thomas.

The court is expected to issue an expedited decision in the coming days or weeks.