The Department of Justice stated in its documents that allowing the injunction to continue to be effective “will extend” its “substantial damage to the sovereign interests of the United States and will harm the public interest.”
By “ignoring the Constitution and frustrating judicial review, Texas has not only prolonged attacks on its civil rights; it has also rejected its obligations under our national contract in a way that directly involves the sovereign interests of the United States,” The Justice Department stated in its summary that it submitted it nearly one day before the deadline.
On the morning after Pittman issued the order, some clinics in Texas resumed abortion services for patients who were pregnant for more than six weeks. The clinic did this at some legal risk, because Texas law allows enforcement actions against abortions performed while a court order preventing the law is in effect, if the higher court later revokes the order.
The law does not provide for exceptions for rape or incest, except for “medical emergencies”.
In its briefing, the Department of Justice refuted Texas’ wrong statement that Pittman directed his order against state court officials and others.
“Choose this extremely unusual method to enforce its unconstitutional laws. If Texas is not satisfied with the specific mechanism adopted by the district court, it is obliged to determine an alternative form of injunctive relief. It is clear that Texas The state has not done this,” the department said.