Mr. Stone said Texas law “is far less than that.”
“Yes,” Chief Justice Roberts said a little angrily. “We call my question an assumption.”
Judge Kagan said Texas should not be rewarded for making a brilliant law.
“After all these years, some geniuses have found a way to avoid orders” is an important precedent, and he added, “The broader policy that states should not repeal federal constitutional rights is, ‘Oh, we have never seen this before, so there is nothing we can do about it. ‘- I think I do not understand the argument.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B., representing the federal government. Preloger said Texas law is “designed to overturn the rule of federal law in a way that explicitly violates our constitutional framework.”
“States have the freedom to reconsider their constitutional precedents in this Court, but they do not have the freedom to position themselves above this Court, overturn the decisions of the Court within their jurisdiction, and prevent the judicial review necessary to justify federal rights.”
Many judges, including those who sympathized with the providers’ challenge, seemed cautious in allowing the federal government to prosecute states for enacting laws that allegedly violated the Constitution.
“This case is very short, it’s rare, it’s particularly problematic,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “But how extensive is the power you insist on responding to.”
Judge Kavanagh said there were possible ways to allow the providers to pursue the case.
“Your case, on the contrary,” he told Ms. Preloger, “it looks different, irregular and unusual, and we do not know where it is going.”
“Communicator. Music aficionado. Certified bacon trailblazer. Travel advocate. Subtly charming social media fanatic.”