The Law Of Unintended Consequences

A felon in Arkansas is suing a Texas doctor for $100,000. (What an absolute farce). https://t.co/oa7KXQjO8h pic.twitter.com/d3NgbXmulh

— Kendyl Hanks (@HanksKendyl) September 20, 2021

The case will move a little faster to appeal without competent plaintiff’s counsel. However, the issues may not be very well briefed, and that could give the Court more excuses to decline a ruling on the substance of the statute. And there’s this:

That’s why the real key here is relief that bars suits to enforce SB8 from even being brought — whether by blocking the plaintiffs from bringing them or by blocking the courts from filing them.

That’s the real ballgame here, and why the DOJ lawsuit is going to be so important.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 20, 2021

So maybe the DOJ suit is the one to count on. While this is actually funny:

The anti-abortion activists who pushed for SB8 are now slamming these enforcement actions under it, with Texas Right to Life's head John Seago stressing that they're not "from the Pro-Life movement."

He called the suits "self-serving legal stunts." https://t.co/m3AzbdL78l

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) September 20, 2021

Or just people looking for money? Besides, the statute is all about “self-serving legal stunts.” What else can lawsuits be where there is no nexus between plaintiff and defendant, no harm whatsoever done, even alleged, between the parties? (Which I still think is where this statute fails, and without its bizarre enforcement provision the constitutional violation is naked and indefensible. It’s an abuse of the legal process, in other words. Which may be what Professor Vladeck is getting at, from other directions.) 

And it was setup to promote suits from people who are not “from the Pro-Life movement.” So it’s functioning as designed.