Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Department of Justice sues Texas over abortion ban

Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, announces a federal lawsuit over Texas' new abortion law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, joined by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (left) and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, announces a federal lawsuit over Texas' new abortion law.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

The Justice Department announced Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit against Texas over its six-week abortion ban that went into effect last week. The Biden administration has faced pressure to take action after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the new law that has become the most restrictive in the country.

The DOJ lawsuit will test the federal government's ability to challenge Texas' unique legislation, which empowers private parties to sue anyone who “aids or abets" a person in obtaining an abortion in the state after six weeks of pregnancy. That key provision significantly differs from attempted abortion restrictions in other states, which rely on criminal enforcement, and may complicate federal attempts to intervene, experts say.


In a news conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said his department is seeking a “permanent and preliminary injunction" prohibiting the law from being enforced.

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent," Garland said. “The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible."

The department's complaint argues that the Texas restriction violates the Fourteenth Amendment right for a person to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

“S.B. 8 implicates this doctrine by expressly authorizing—indeed, empowering—individuals to engage in conduct that violates the constitutional rights of women throughout Texas, in a manner in which the State itself would not be able to engage," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also asserts that the law violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which says the federal constitution takes precedence over state laws.

“There are all kinds of federal agencies who have federal contractors or federal employees operating in Texas, and some of the things they do would put them at risk of being sued by individuals in Texas under S.B. 8," said Sara Ainsworth, senior legal and policy director at If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice. The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, for example, can help facilitate reproductive health care, including abortions for unaccompanied minors. S.B. 8 would also interfere with the Defense Department's legal authority to provide abortions to people who are eligible because they either would be endangered by carrying a fetus to term or became pregnant due to rape or incest, the lawsuit says.

Abortion rights organizations praised the move. “We are heartened to see the Biden administration stepping in to take action to vindicate Texans' rights," Helene Krasnoff, vice president of public policy litigation and law for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

  • “It's a gamechanger that the Department of Justice has joined the legal battle to restore constitutionally protected abortion access in Texas and disarm vigilantes looking to collect their bounties," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

Last week President Joe Biden promised that his administration would explore a “whole-of-government" response to the Texas law. He condemned the restrictions, stating that the aid and abet clause “unleashes unconstitutional chaos and empowers self-anointed enforcers to have devastating impacts."

Congressional Democrats are vowing to pass federal legislation to establish abortion access nationally. This includes a proposed bill known as the Women's Health Protection Act, which would create a statutory right to abortion care, effectively voiding restrictive state laws like Texas'.

“Every woman, everywhere has the constitutional right to basic health care," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a statement following the Supreme Court's ruling. “S.B. 8 is the most extreme, dangerous abortion ban in half a century, and its purpose is to destroy Roe v. Wade, and even refuses to make exceptions for cases of rape and incest. This ban necessitates codifying Roe v. Wade." But abortion rights legislation would face obstacles in the evenly divided Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass.

On Tuesday, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called for Garland to “use the full power of the Department of Justice to defend a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion," including criminal prosecution against individuals who attempt to enforce Texas' law.

Ainsworth said the DOJ's lawsuit could lead to a different interpretation from the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which essentially argued that the court could not block Texas' law largely because it is individuals, not officials, who are in charge of enforcement.

An important distinction between the cases, Ainsworth said, is that the DOJ lawsuit holds Texas responsible for enabling individuals to sue. Part of the department's argument, she said, is this: “You may say that you farmed this out to private people to enforce and therefore you are free from any lawsuit against it, but you are wrong."

Those who successfully sue someone over an abortion would be awarded at least $10,000 and have their legal fees reimbursed. Lawsuits on the constitutionality of the six-week ban are pending.

Since the law took effect on September 1, clinics in the state have stopped scheduling abortion-related visits for people who are more than six weeks pregnant. A number of clinics in surrounding states have abortion appointments booked through mid-October, said Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund. Many people do not understand the specifics of the legislation, leaving them uncertain about what circumstances they can face legal action, Conner added.

Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, one of the bill's lead authors, told The 19th last week that he has had conversations with other state lawmakers interested in writing similar legislation. In his news conference, Garland said any similar actions from other states will be met with federal action as well.

As the court battle over Texas plays out, abortion rights advocates are also looking ahead to another case that will allow the Supreme Court to determine whether Mississippi will be allowed to enforce an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That restriction, like others around the country, has been on hold while it's being considered by the courts, and the decision could have wide-ranging effects.

Read More

Mandatory vs. Voluntary Inclusionary Housing: What Cities Are Doing to Create Affordable Homes

affordable housing

Dougal Waters/Getty Images

Mandatory vs. Voluntary Inclusionary Housing: What Cities Are Doing to Create Affordable Homes

As housing costs rise across United States cities, local governments are adopting inclusionary housing policies to ensure that some portion of new residential developments remains affordable. These policies—defined and tracked by organizations like the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy—require or encourage developers to include below-market-rate units in otherwise market-rate projects. Today, over 1,000 towns have implemented some form of inclusionary housing, often in response to mounting pressure to prevent displacement and address racial and economic inequality.

What’s the Difference Between Mandatory and Voluntary Approaches?

Inclusionary housing programs generally fall into two types:

Keep ReadingShow less
Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot
person using laptop computer
Photo by Christin Hume on Unsplash

Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot

We live in a time when anyone with a cellphone carries a computer more powerful than those that sent humans to the moon and back. Yet few of us can sustain a thought beyond a few seconds. One study suggested that the average human attention span dropped from about 12 seconds in 2000 to roughly 8 seconds by 2015—although the accuracy of this figure has been disputed (Microsoft Canada, 2015 Attention Spans Report). Whatever the number, the trend is clear: our ability to focus is not what it used to be.

This contradiction—constant access to unlimited information paired with a decline in critical thinking—perfectly illustrates what Oxford named its 2024 Word of the Year: “brain rot.” More than a funny meme, it represents a genuine threat to democracy. The ability to deeply engage with issues, weigh rival arguments, and participate in collective decision-making is key to a healthy democratic society. When our capacity for focus erodes due to overstimulation, distraction, or manufactured outrage, it weakens our ability to exercise our role as citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Clemency for Giuliani et al is Another Effort to Whitewash History and Damage Democracy

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, September 11, 2025 in New York City.

(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Trump's Clemency for Giuliani et al is Another Effort to Whitewash History and Damage Democracy

In the earliest days of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton defended giving the president the exclusive authority to grant pardons and reprieves against the charge that doing so would concentrate too much power in one person’s hands. Reading the news of President Trump’s latest use of that authority to reward his motley crew of election deniers and misfit lawyers, I was taken back to what Hamilton wrote in 1788.

He argued that “The principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well- timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.”

Keep ReadingShow less
What the Success Academy Scandal Says About the Charter School Model

Empty classroom with U.S. flag

phi1/Getty Images

What the Success Academy Scandal Says About the Charter School Model

When I was running a school, I knew that every hour of my team’s day mattered. A well-prepared lesson, a timely phone call home to a parent, or a few extra minutes spent helping a struggling student were the kinds of investments that added up to better outcomes for kids.

That is why the leaked recording of Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz pressuring staff to lobby elected officials hit me so hard. In an audio first reported by Gothamist, she tells employees, “Every single one of you must make calls,” assigning quotas to contact lawmakers. On September 18th, the network of 59 schools canceled classes for its roughly 22,000 students to bring them to a political rally during the school day. What should have been time for teaching and learning became a political operation.

Keep ReadingShow less