Supreme Court, United States, Leah Littman discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York Show

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leo this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state laws That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you have the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay as resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals optic federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a mucus because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casby oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg Introducing venture.

Coming up next