Texas judge dismisses SB 8 lawsuit against Alan Braid

Abortion rights activists gathered at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas on September 11, 2021.

Alan braidthe Texas doctor who stated that he could perform an abortion in defiance of the Texas “bounty hunter law“, has just won a positive judgment in a lawsuit against him. But in this unusual lawsuit, that’s not the outcome Braid was hoping for.

Texas SB 8, also known as the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” went into effect in September 2021 after the US Supreme Court refused to block it. It’s a civil statute that allows anyone with knowledge of an abortion in Texas to sue any party that “supports or encourages” the abortion, seeking $10,000 in damages. Felipe Gomezan Illinois attorney with a suspended license to practice, sued Braid under SB8.

Gomez was not a true enemy of Braid. More like Gomez said He conducted his lawsuit with the goal of giving Braid an opportunity to challenge the restrictive Texas law.

In September 2021 before SCOTUS intervened Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s HealthBraid enrolled op ed in which Washington Post in which he announced that he had terminated a pregnancy in violation of SB 8. Gomez sued Braid under the law and then stated to the press that his motivation was to give Braid a chance to test SB 8 in court. “I have no difference with the defendant,” Gomez told the ChicagoTribune in 2021. “The difference lies in the writer of the law.”

Judge in San Antonio Aaron Hass dismissed Gomez’s case on Thursday, and that dismissal pointed out a key problem with SB 8: It has the potential to allow the wrong people to fight abortion lawsuits. Hass announced the dismissal of Gomez’s case from the bench, stating that plaintiffs like Gomez, who have no connection to the prohibited abortion and were not harmed thereby, have no standing complaint under the law.

The standing legal requirement in all legal proceedings is that the plaintiff seek a judicial remedy actually harmed by the accused’s alleged misconduct. Since the case was dismissed on a standing basis, the law could not be challenged on the merits.

When Gomez originally filed his case, SB 8 was the nation’s most restrictive abortion law. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. calf, the Gomez case is against a completely different background. Most abortions in Texas are illegalso that the need to create a private right of action against providers with a law such as Section 8 has been largely neutralized.

However, Gomez plans to appeal Thursday’s verdict. As a result, a future ruling could test some of the law’s outer limits. For example, a plaintiff other than Gomez — one with a direct connection to an abortion — could have the kind of standing that Gomez lacked, which would pave the way for the underlying legal challenge to proceed.

[Photo by Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images]

Do you have a tip we should know? [email protected]