that? that s right. i think so, because that language distinguishes between the power to restrain commencement of suits, because i think that language supports relief against the clerks, versus weather courts should restrain a case brought before it. which would mean that would refer to the so judges here. i think in subsequent decisions of this court, you re correct, there are instances where the court has recognized in pulliam and mitcham, where relief against state judges and congress recognized in section 1983 that judges can be proper defendants and we ve brought that well, it s more than just that, frankly. because ex parte young depends on enforcement. i think that s the key word. it turns out in kelly versus cramer, the word enforcement is in there, by my count, 27 times, give or take a couple, to describe what state courts do when they adjudicate private civil suits.
today. walk me through the arguments, the top lines here. so there were a lot of tense and technical legal arguments that we just heard in the last hour. but the bottom line here is that texas has a law that essentially bans abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. but it doesn t empower the state to enforce the law. a lot of the arguments at issue in the last hour was the question of whether the supreme court, whether the federal courts can enjoin either state judges or state clerks from hearing those lawsuits. it turns on that question. and the fact at one point the chief justice roberts noted when you talk about suing judges, you got our attention. and there was a variety of arguments both ways on that. but then the other major issue that this raises is the potential that this law holds to be replicated across the country, and there we heard an
fairly traceable to any allegedly unlawful behavior by state court judges or clerks. and this court recognized in ex parte young itself that such an injunction would be a violation of the whole scheme of our government. state judges are presumed to faithfully apply federal law and this court s decisions. if they do not, this court may exercise appellate review. that is exactly how federal constitutional defenses are presented and adjudicated all the time. if congress believes it needs to expand access to the lower federal courts in order to protect petitioner s rights, that is a matter for congress. not a basis to alter bedrock doctrines organizing the federal courts. i welcome to court s questions. mr. stone, why wouldn t you consider the sb-8 plaintiffs to
0 weeks. lindsey? gabe gutierrez, thank you. and in just seconds, we ll take you inside the supreme court to hear arguments in two challenges to the texas abortion law. i m lindsey reiser in for stephanie ruhle. jose diaz-balart picks up the coverage right now. good morning. it s 10:00 a.m. eastern, 7:00 a.m. pacific. i m jose diaz-balart. and we begin with something that hasn t happened before. for the first time ever, msnbc will bring you live oral arguments from the u.s. supreme court as it takes up two cases stemming from the controversial texas abortion law. this will be audio only, as the supreme court does not allow television cameras. the first case is whole women s health versus jackson. it was filed by abortion providers, challenging a law that effectively bans abortions in texas and shifts enforcement from the state to private citizens who can sue anyone seeking an abortion or anyone who helps a woman obtain one. with me now so break this all down, nbc news corresponde