Justice Sotomayor chops, deseeds and grills kentucky lawyer

[butters]

as the SCOTUS heard oral arguments where a lone state official tries to defend an anti-abortion law that had already been ruled as unconstitutional

“So, when you were sued in the suit originally, you were sued as the attorney general, correct?” the left-wing justice asked.

“That’s correct,” replied Kuhn, a Federalist Society member. “As someone who can enforce the challenged law.”

“And you said: ‘We can’t,'” Sotomayor dug in, presenting her theory of the case. “And you signed a stipulation dismissing yourself and saying that you would abide by the decision of the secretary of state, its litigation, and abide by whatever judgment was entered in this case–would be bound by any final judgment in the action. Is that correct?”

“That is correct, there are a couple qualifications to that, but, yes, generally,” Kuhn conceded.


“Generally,” Sotomayor repeated. “You didn’t appeal the judgment. Is that correct?”

“That’s correct,” Kuhn said.

“Why would we call it an abuse of discretion for a court of appeals–after its rendered its judgment–to say ‘We don’t really care what’s happened in the political arena. We don’t want to be dragged into it?'” Sotomayor asked. “You agreed to be bound by this judgment. You didn’t appeal–even though you were a party. Are you telling me you’re now willing to waive the sovereign immunity of the state? Because that’s what it sounds like.”

“EMW acknowledged the Commonwealth was not before the district court,” Kuhn noted. “That acknowledgment, I think, overcomes the stipulation.”

Sotomayor interrupted for a refresher on the law.

“Well, it couldn’t have been before the district court–the state has sovereign immunity, correct?” she asked. But before Kuhn could answer, the justice went on: “So, the state under no circumstance [could have been a defendant], even now on appeal, unless it’s willing to waive sovereignty.”

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cou...over-efforts-to-revive-kentucky-abortion-ban/

 

[bodysong]

The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to allow Kentucky’s Republican attorney
general to defend restrictions on abortion that two courts have found unconstitutional.

"...the debate is over which government official gets to decide enough is enough
now that the law has lost in federal district court and then before a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit."

The law was passed by the Kentucky legislature in 2018 and signed by then-
Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican. EMW, a clinic in Louisville, filed suit, saying
the law was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on the right
to abortion before fetal viability.

Enter Republican Cameron (Attorney General Daniel Cameron), who had won the race
to replace Beshear as attorney general. He attempted to intervene in the case
and continue to defend the law.

But the appeals court said it was too late, citing Beshear’s decision to stay out of the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3b3a38-2b89-11ec-985d-3150f7e106b2_story.html


10/12/2021

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed which state officials can defend
abortion bans in court — a procedural question with implications that extend
beyond reproductive health in states where the governor and attorney general
hail from opposing parties.

The arguments marked the first abortion case to be argued in full before the court's
6-3 conservative majority and centered on whether Republican Kentucky Attorney
General Daniel Cameron could defend his state’s ban on some forms of abortion
after two courts found it unconstitutional and Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear refused
to defend it further.

A decision, which is expected next summer, could extend beyond abortion
to Covid mandates, gun control laws and even election results.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that since the state elected a Republican attorney
general while the case was working its way through the courts, that new official
should have the chance to take a different stance than his Democratic predecessor.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan pushed back against those arguments -
"We don’t really care what has happened in the political arena. We don’t want to be
dragged into it,” Sotomayor said, noting Cameron missed a deadline to appeal,
then later sought to intervene in the case.

Kentucky Principal Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Kuhn argued state residents
want a "failsafe" for situations in which the governor declines to defend laws like
abortion bans. “The AG is the agent of the state. We are here on behalf of the state,”
Kuhn said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12/supreme-court-abortion-restrictions-515805

Supreme Court Focuses on Procedure in Kentucky Abortion Case

- NY Times