Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

Justice Elena Kagan Rips Texas Lawyer By Educating Him On What Constitutional Rights Actually Are

Justice Elena Kagan Rips Texas Lawyer By Educating Him On What Constitutional Rights Actually Are
Erin Schaff/Pool/Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan took Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone II to task on constitutional rights as the Court hears arguments about Texas's anti-abortion law.

On Monday, November 1, the Court began hearing arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, a lawsuit challenging the law, which prohibits virtually all abortions after a heartbeat is detected and empowers citizens to file lawsuits against abortion providers suspected of violating the new policy.


There was friction between Stone and Kagan, and you can hear what happened in the video below.

youtu.be

It all began when Stone argued that the Supreme Court cannot stop the law from being implemented, saying that federal courts "don't enjoin laws, they enjoin officials who enforce the laws."

His remarks were questioned by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who called it a "loophole" to constitutional rights that could apply to any right, even Second Amendment rights, and asked Stone to consider a scenario in which a state didn't ban guns but made anyone who sells an AR-15 "liable for a million dollars to any citizen."

Stone responded by claiming that his argument "does not turn on the nature of the right." He said only an act of Congress would stop states from passing such laws, adding that the Supreme Court would not be able to do anything.

That was when Kagan stepped in–and ripped Stone for his reasoning.

"Your answer to Justice Kavanaugh, which is go ask Congress, I mean, isn't the point of a right that you don't have to ask Congress?"
"Isn't the point of a right that it doesn't really matter what Congress thinks or what the majority of the American people think as to that right?"

According to Stone, the Supreme Court has to assume that Texas state court judges will "faithfully apply the Constitution," in this case Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose reproductive healthcare without excessive government restriction.

The Supreme Court, he said, would only be able to weigh in on the law following appeals in the event a Texas state court doesn't apply Roe correctly and awards a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues over an otherwise legal abortion.

Kagan also disapproved of that argument, noting that an appeal could come "many years from now" and cause "a chilling effect that basically deprives people who want to exercise the right from the opportunity to do so in the maybe long-term interim."

Many have praised Kagan for her remarks.









The exchange between Kagan and Stone is but one example of the remarks Kagan made about the Texas law.

Earlier, she said the law is creating a "procedural morass" by placing the Court in a position where it would have to undo lower court orders:

"Tell me if I'm wrong on this, that just the procedural morass we've got ourselves into with this extremely unusual law is that we would really be telling the Fifth Circuit, again, if your position prevailed, that the district court had to be allowed to continue with its preliminary injunction ruling."

And, commenting on what might happen if the Supreme Court allows states to enforce laws much in the way Texas has crafted its anti-abortion law, she said:

"I mean, that was something that until this law came along no state dreamed of doing."
"And, essentially, we would be like, you know, we're open for business — you're open for business. There's nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don't like, go ahead."

In September, Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general considered the abortion law's architect, wrote an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court ahead of its ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, a Mississippi case limiting abortion to 15 weeks.

The brief questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Mitchell's approach has drawn heavy criticisms that it seeks to evade the process of judicial review, which is the power of courts to decide the validity of acts of the legislative and executive branches of government.

More from News

Martin Scorsese at the “Kundun” screening for the 2025 Tribeca Film Festival.
Dominik Bindl/Getty Images

Scorsese sparks debate on theaters

Martin Scorsese won’t be watching the latest summer blockbuster in a movie theater anymore.

Film critic Peter Travers interviewed the 82-year-old famed director of Goodfellas and The Irishman for his blog, The Travers Take. The website is the latest project from Travers, a film critic for Rolling Stone and Good Morning America, as well as a longtime friend of Scorsese.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans on TODAY
TODAY/YouTube

Dakota Johnson Stuns 'Today' Viewers With Her Hilariously Blunt Dating 'Non-Negotiable'

Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal, and Chris Evans are excited about their upcoming film Materialists and have been actively touring to discuss the movie and its central themes of dating and dating expectations, often to hilarious effect.

Some highlights have been Pascal calling out Johnson for not remembering the first time they met, and Evans epically winning a round of identifying romance films based on one, sometimes incredibly obscure, line.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bernadette Peters; Cole Escola
Rob Kim/Getty Images; TheStewartofNY/FilmMagic

Bernadette Peters Offers Hilarious Reaction To Cole Escola's Tribute To Her Iconic Gown At The Tony Awards

Awards shows always have two competitions: the actual awards, and the red carpet outside.

Cole Escola, star and playwright of the hit show Oh, Mary!, did both at the Tony Awards this year. Escola, who won the Best Leading Actor in a Play for their performance, first showed up prior to the event to show off their intricate and stunning look, an homage to actor Bernadette Peters' iconic look from the 1999 Tony Awards.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pam Bondi
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

AG Pam Bondi's Brother Blames 'Rabid Partisans' After Getting Absolutely Walloped In DC Election

MAGA Republican President Donald Trump has often bragged about his overwhelming victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, claiming he won by a landslide. But while he did manage to finally win a popular vote in 2024, something he lost in 2016 and 2020, it was hardly a landslide.

About 90 million eligible, registered voters didn't bother to vote at all in 2024, while Trump garnered only ~77 million votes, VP Harris received about ~75 million—a difference of only ~2 million which is less than the population of Trump's hometown of Queens, New York City.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem
Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images

Kristi Noem's Past Views On National Guard Come Back To Bite Her After She Backs Trump Amid LA Protests

California Governor Gavin Newsom called out the hypocrisy of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after sharing a clip from last year showing she'd once criticized the Biden administration for considering deploying the National Guard when Democrats suggested it as a response to Texas' immigration crackdown at the time.

That's noteworthy because Noem has made an about-face, defending President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles amid ongoing protests in response to his administration's immigration raids by claiming he'd taken this drastic step "for the safety of this community ... to keep peace."

Keep ReadingShow less