DoJ’s Standing to Sue Texas: Protecting Constitutional Rights and Federal Interests

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) initiated a lawsuit against the state of Texas, challenging S.B. 8. One of the central questions faced by legal experts is: how does the DoJ establish standing to sue Texas and does this action violate any judicially crafted premises of personal standing for a case or controversy?

Establishment of Standing

The U.S. DoJ has laid out clear grounds for its lawsuit, as detailed in the complaint. Paragraph 4 of the complaint states that the Texas law, S.B. 8, is evading its constitutional obligations by depriving individuals of their fundamental rights. Paragraph 5 of the complaint further elaborates that the DoJ is bringing this suit to protect other federal interests that the law unconstitutionally impairs. Specifically, the complaint highlights that S.B. 8:

Violates federal law by purporting to prohibit federal agencies from performing their responsibilities under federal abortion laws, even in cases of rape or incest. Imposes civil liability and penalties on federal employees and non-governmental partners who facilitate abortions for cases of rape or incest.

These bases collectively establish standing for the DoJ to sue, as the Texas legislature has effectively overruled constitutional rights through S.B. 8. The U.S. government has a clear responsibility to protect these constitutional rights.

DoJ’s Role in Initiating Litigation

It’s important to note that the DoJ does not act on behalf of the U.S. as a private party. Instead, the DoJ is mandated to initiate prosecutions and lawsuits to protect federal interests and uphold the law. Unlike a private individual or organization, the DoJ can sue whenever federal law is being violated.

Broader Standing Eligibility

While the DoJ’s standing is often seen as broader than that of an individual plaintiff, it is still grounded in the principle of protecting the public interest. In this case, a clear example of the DoJ’s broad eligibility for standing is seen in the challenge being brought against S.B. 8 based on how it establishes civil and criminal liability for federal employees simply performing their duties.

For instance, consider a scenario in which a federal healthcare worker at a Texas VA facility has a pregnant female veteran seeking an abortion due to being raped or health reasons. If the worker recommends the veteran to get an abortion and provides her with recommendations, that worker could be charged under S.B. 8 if they recommend an out-of-state abortion. This is just one example of how the law can have a detrimental impact on federal employees simply doing their jobs.

Broaden the Context

There are several other reasons why the DoJ can sue Texas. The primary motivation is to protect the Constitution and federal interests. The broader context is that such laws undermine the federal government's ability to carry out its missions. For instance, the ability of federal agencies to provide funding and reimbursement for abortions in cases of rape or incest would be severely hampered. This, in turn, would infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals and the federal government’s authority.

Tackling the Alt-Right Misconception

The argument that the DoJ lacks standing is often disseminated by those with an anti-DoJ, alt-right agenda. However, it is a baseless claim. The DoJ has a well-established right to sue to protect constitutional rights and federal interests. Examples like the healthcare worker scenario above clearly illustrate the DoJ’s plausible grounds for action.

Furthermore, the DoJ’s lawsuit is not just about protecting federal interests; it is also about preserving the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. The Texas law, S.B. 8, is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution, particularly in its treatment of federal employees and its broad scope of liability and penalties. The DoJ’s action is a necessary step to counteract these unconstitutional elements.

Ultimately, the DoJ’s standing to sue Texas is well-founded, aligning with both legal precedent and the constitutional responsibilities outlined in the complaint. The case underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights and the federal government’s role in maintaining the rule of law.