The states of Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the New York abortion “shield law” along with those of California and Massachusetts. In their Sept. 30 filing, the pro-life states submitted their complaint along with a brief telling the Supreme Court why they should be allowed to file the complaint so the court can rule on it.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said that the “shield laws” violate the Constitution and federal law by promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws.
Murrill charged that when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade it returned the issue of abortion to the states and New York, California, and Massachusetts swiftly moved to circumvent the Supreme Court and the law of the land by actively seeking ways to nullify the sovereign rights of pro-life states. She said what they came up with were “shield laws” that restrict cooperation with out-of-state law enforcement, limit extradition, prevent the enforcement of certain out-of-state judgments and subpoenas, and harbor providers who prescribe and mail abortion drugs into pro-life states.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
She describes “shield laws” as not shields at all, but swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states.
The three plaintiff states want the Supreme Court to hold that “shield laws” violate the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, the equal-sovereignty doctrine, the federal common law of public nuisance, and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
“Louisiana has made its position on abortion clear through the bipartisan will of the people’s representatives in its Legislature. Louisiana chooses life. We will not allow activist states, activist providers, or distributors profiting from killing babies to threaten Louisiana’s sovereignty, violate Louisiana law, or endanger Louisiana women and babies,” Murrill said at a news conference in Baton Rouge.
In response to the move by the pro-life states, Gov. Kathy Hochul said, “No one should have to fear being punished for seeking or providing reproductive care. As anti-abortion extremists in other states try to reach across our borders and threaten patients and providers, New York will stand up for them. Our shield laws are there to protect that freedom, and I will never stop fighting to keep New York a safe haven for reproductive rights.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James said, ““Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas are asking the Supreme Court to let them impose their abortion bans on New York and punish our doctors for providing legal health care. New York has always been a safe haven for reproductive freedom. It was true before Roe, it has been true since Dobbs, and it will remain true long after this lawsuit inevitably fails. I will fight with everything in my power to defend our shield law and protect every provider and patient who depends on it.”
The lawsuit states, in part, “According to one report, Louisiana is experiencing approximately 1,000 abortions a month despite Louisiana’s abortion ban; Arkansas is experiencing approximately 300 every month; and Alabama is experiencing approximately 700 every month. According to the same report, each abortion results from out-of-state drugs.”
In the brief filed to support their request to file the case so the Supreme Court can consider it, the plaintiff states said, “This case asks the Court to resolve one of the most dramatic and sweeping interstate conflicts in modern history. There can be no question about the seriousness of the interests at stake. Nor can there be any question that this is the appropriate forum to resolve the conflict, and that the shield laws at issue are plainly unlawful. If Dobbs (the case that overturned Roe v. Wade) is more than a parchment promise, then the Court’s exercise of original jurisdiction is urgently needed in this case to restore the equal sovereignty of the several states and the promise of Dobbs.”
