Texas in the Broader Republican Context
Just one part of the modern Republican theme
Texas’ new law, Senate Bill No. 8, the so-called “Texas Heartbeat Act” is breathtakingly disingenuous. The law relies on a legal twist to take away a legal right—while claiming to do no such thing. The law specifically enjoins all levels of the executive branch of government from becoming involved in any way in the enforcement of the law. The law thereby avoids any complaint that “the state” is taking away the civil right to abortion affirmed by Roe v. Wade, based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (one of the post Civil War amendments). Instead, enforcement of S.B. No. 8 is outsourced to individuals bringing suit in the civil judicial system. The law offers private parties legal grounds to threaten anyone even remotely aiding a women in obtaining an abortion with what amounts to legal extortion: “If you even council a woman about getting an abortion, I will take you to civil court. I will entangle you for weeks or months in a suit that could cost you at least $10,000 and reimbursement for my legal bills in bringing the suit. At a minimum it’ll cost you your time and your own legal fees. (Why don’t you just hand over some money and we’ll settle this quietly out of court?)” The tactic is sickeningly clever. You can read about its origins and the lawyer who hatched the idea here.
This new Republican tactic, at a minimum, provides self-righteous busybodies with the power to intimidate. At its worst it contains whiffs of the vigilantist informers we recall from the McCarthy era in our 1950s, the East German Stasi, and from Orwell’s 1984.
As Heather Cox Richardson writes in her post copied below, this new Texas law is just part of a decades-long effort by the Republican Party to undermine civil rights. What I though I understood about the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court—that one of its main functions was to ensure for the people in all the states the civil rights articulated in the U.S. Constitution and all of its Amendments (not just the ones in place before the Civil War)—is now at stake. Republicans are closing the door on the hopeful America in which I thought I grew up, an America in which the federal judiciary protected the rights of all its citizens.
Keep to the high ground,
I encourage you, if you have not already, to sign up for Professor Cox Richardson’s daily email.
The new anti-abortion law in Texas is not just about abortion; it is about undermining civil rights decisions made by the Supreme Court during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The Supreme Court declined to stop a state law that violates a constitutional right.
Since World War II, the Supreme Court has defended civil rights from state laws that threaten them. During the Great Depression, Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began to use the government to regulate business, provide a basic social safety net—this is when we got Social Security—and promote infrastructure. But racist Democrats from the South balked at racial equality under this new government.
After World War II, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointed by Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court set out to make all Americans equal before the law. They tried to end segregation through the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision prohibiting racial segregation in public schools. They protected the right of married couples to use contraception in 1965. They legalized interracial marriage in 1967. In 1973, with the Roe v. Wade decision, they tried to give women control over their own reproduction by legalizing abortion.
They based their decisions on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Congress developed this amendment after legislatures in former Confederate states passed “Black Codes” that severely limited the rights and protections for formerly enslaved people. Congress intended for the powers in the Fourteenth to enable the federal government to guarantee that African Americans had the same rights as white Americans, even in states whose legislatures intended to keep them in a form of quasi-slavery.
Justices in the Warren and Burger courts argued that the Fourteenth Amendment required that the Bill of Rights apply to state governments as well as to the federal government. This is known as the “incorporation doctrine,” but the name matters less than the concept: states cannot abridge an individual’s rights, any more than the federal government can. This doctrine dramatically expanded civil rights.
From the beginning, there was a backlash against the New Deal government by businessmen who objected to the idea of federal regulation and the bureaucracy it would require. As early as 1937, they were demanding an end to the active government and a return to the world of the 1920s, where businessmen could do as they wished, families and churches managed social welfare, and private interests profited from infrastructure projects. They gained little traction. The vast majority of Americans liked the new system.
But the expansion of civil rights under the Warren Court was a whole new kettle of fish. Opponents of the new decisions insisted that the court was engaging in “judicial activism,” taking away from voters the right to make their own decisions about how society should work. That said that justices were “legislating from the bench.” They insisted that the Constitution is limited by the views of its framers and that the government can do nothing that is not explicitly written in that 1787 document.
This is the foundation for today’s “originalists” on the court. They are trying to erase the era of legislation and legal decisions that constructed our modern nation. If the government is as limited as they say, it cannot regulate business. It cannot provide a social safety net or promote infrastructure, both things that cost tax dollars and, in the case of infrastructure, take lucrative opportunities from private businesses.
It cannot protect the rights of minorities or women.
Their doctrine would send authority for civil rights back to the states to wither or thrive as different legislatures see fit. But it has, in the past, run into the problem that Supreme Court precedent has led the court to overturn unconstitutional state laws that deprive people of their rights (although the recent conservative courts have chipped away at those precedents).
The new Texas law gets around this problem with a trick. It does not put state officers in charge of enforcing it. Instead, it turns enforcement over to individual citizens. So, when opponents sued to stop the measure from going into effect, state officials argued that they could not be stopped from enforcing the law because they don’t enforce it in the first place. With this workaround, Texas lawmakers have, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent, “delegate[d] to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from…[exercising]...a federal constitutional right.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was more forceful, calling the measure “a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny.” And yet, the Supreme Court permitted that state law to stand simply by refusing to do anything to stop it. As Sotomayor wrote in her dissent: “Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.”
A state has undermined the power of the federal government to protect civil rights. It has given individuals who disagree with one particular right the power to take it away from their neighbors. But make no mistake: there is no reason that this mechanism couldn’t be used to undermine much of the civil rights legislation of the post–World War II years.
On September 4, 1957, three years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, a crowd of angry white people barred nine Black students from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The white protesters chanted: “Two, four, six, eight, we ain’t gonna integrate.”
In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower used the federal government to protect the constitutional rights of the Little Rock Nine from the white vigilantes who wanted to keep them second-class citizens. In 2021, the Supreme Court has handed power back to the vigilantes.