hence, the case the folk is on enforcement, as opposed to adjudicating that enforcement. and i don t think it really distinguishes it to say, well, this isn t about that. it expressly excludes injoining a state court. well, your honor, i think it excludes injoining the court the an action after it has already been filed, but it allows for it. it says that there is the power to restrain the commencement of this suit. and i understand, your honor, that in that suit, it was an injunction against the state official who was commencing the suit but i think the principles underlying ex parte young, which are to allow a federal forum for the vindication of federal constitutional rights would support an action here against the clerks to injoin the commencement of the suit. i also think that that language an ex parte young is not about
against enforcement, because the law is patently unconstitutional and if these are the correct defendants, then enforcement should flow. so we would ask the court to issue such interim relief. thank you, mr. hearron. would the chief permit me a follow-up on that? sure. counsel, if we vacate the fifth circuit s order or orders basically staying the district court proceedings, presumably, that would vacate its denial of the state that it has asked from the district court order. we reinstated the district court order, you would have a stay in place, wouldn t you? technically, there are two stays in play. one that was around by the district court, and if you were to vacate those in the interim, we would be able to go back and ask for an interim relief in the district court. would you grant a stay of enforcement of the law?
and under the principle that we re advancing, it would not allow suit against clerks to challenge most lawsuits. this is a unique law created because the state has delegated enforcement. and has taken away the normal executive officials who would enforce, and has weaponized the state court system into a tool that can be used to abrogate constitutional rights. this is a unique situation. i think the real danger is that if this court does not allow the suit, then that will provide a road map for other states to abrogate other rights that have been recognized by this court. thank you. justice barrett? thank you, counsel. general stone? thank you, mr. chief justice. if i may please the court, petitioner s sprut of an injunction suffers from two fundamental problems. first, none of the individuals the petitioner sued are
evade judicial protection of that right in federal or state court. texas delegated enforcement to literally any person, anywhere, except its own state officials. the only conceivable reason for doing so was to evade federal court review under ex parte young. texas then created special rules, applicable only to sb-8 claims, that make it all but impossible to protect one s constitutional s rights in state court. for a single abortion, the law authorizes limitless suits in all 254 counties and provide that a victory in one has no preclusive effect in any other. texas incentivized enforcement through awards of at least $10,000 per prohibited abortion against each defendant, without any showing of injury, and it added draconian, one-sided fees provisions, with liability extended even to attorneys themselves. the combined effect is to transform the state courts from a forum for the protection of
docking is exactly what makes them a proper defendant here. we know that courts will docket every sb-8 petition that is brought forward. and the state has encouraged and has incentivized enforcement by offering $10,000 or more bounties this is not only extraordinary, it s so unusual that we re able to listen in on what the supreme court is listening to, those oral arguments before the course, as it takes up these two cases stemming from the controversial texas abortion law. but we re going to go back to it. it s unusual, it s extraordinary. i want to just bring in neal katyal to give us a little context about what we ve been hearing. tell us about this conversation over and over again about, i guess, is it the standing of this case, right? yeah. so what we are listening to the live audio, which generally doesn t happen. it s only a new innovation since covid, that the supreme court has allowed live audio. and the supreme court is questioning this lawyer on the