Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Pro Bono Program
    • Creative Council
    • Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
    • Global Advocacy
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Events
    • Press Releases
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Make a Gift Now
    • Be a Champion
    • Join the Advocates Council
    • Become a Major Donor
    • Give Through Your Donor-Advised Fund
    • Make a Gift In Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Leave a Legacy
    • More Ways to Give
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

Texas Court Rejects Vigilante Lawsuit Against Doctor

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Pro Bono Program
    • Creative Council
    • Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
    • Global Advocacy
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Events
    • Press Releases
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Make a Gift Now
    • Be a Champion
    • Join the Advocates Council
    • Become a Major Donor
    • Give Through Your Donor-Advised Fund
    • Make a Gift In Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Leave a Legacy
    • More Ways to Give
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion, Legal Restrictions

Regions:

United States

Work:

In the Courts

Type:

News, Story

Case Archive

For updates on this case and others, explore our case archive here.

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

12.09.2022

In the Courts Abortion United States Story

Texas Court Rejects Vigilante Lawsuit Against Doctor

Nat Ray
Court rules a citizen not harmed can’t sue doctor who violated Texas’s S.B. 8 abortion ban.

Share this Story

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id

More than nine months before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas denied Texans their right to abortion by enacting a “vigilante” law banning abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. 

The law, S.B. 8, incentivizes individuals to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who provides abortion care or assists someone in obtaining an abortion in violation of the ban. The law took effect September 1, 2021. 

Yesterday, a Texas court ruled from the bench that a bystander who is not directly impacted by the abortion service provided cannot sue the abortion provider under S.B. 8. Such a bystander, the court ruled, does not have legal standing. The ruling sets an important precedent limiting the application of the vigilante law.  

The ruling came in Gomez v. Braid, a case brought by an Illinois resident against Dr. Alan Braid, a physician who violated S.B. 8 when he provided a patient with abortion care beyond the law’s six-week limit. The Center for Reproductive Rights defended Dr. Braid in the lawsuit, together with co-counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 

This is the first and only case filed against a provider under S.B. 8 to be resolved by a court. 

“Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban.”

Washington Post Op-ed by Dr. Alan Braid, 09.18.21

“The significance of today’s decision is that even though S.B. 8 says anyone can sue to enforce the abortion ban against someone who provides or assists a prohibited abortion, the Texas Constitution limits who can sue in Texas courts to only people with injuries—not unharmed bounty hunters,” said Marc Hearron, senior counsel at the Center. 

“When I provided my patient with the care she needed last year, I was doing my duty as a physician,” said Dr. Braid. “It is heartbreaking that Texans still can’t get essential health care in their home state and that providers are left afraid to do their jobs. Though we were forced to close our Texas clinic, I will continue serving patients across the region with the care they deserve at new clinics in Illinois and New Mexico.” 

Shortly after he provided abortion care in September 2021 in violation of S.B. 8, Dr. Braid wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post titled “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban.” Dr. Braid described seeing Texas teenagers die from illegal abortions before the Supreme Court recognized abortion as a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade. “For me, it is 1972 all over again,” said Dr. Braid.

The Center’s Fight Against Texas’s Vigilante Abortion Ban

The Center and its partners first filed a case against S.B. 8 in July 2021 in an effort to block the law from taking effect that September. The case, Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Jackson et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of Texas abortion providers led by Whole Woman’s Health, doctors, clinic staff, abortion funds, support networks, and clergy members.  

Since S.B. 8 was designed to skirt judicial review and shift enforcement to private individuals, numerous parties who potentially had a role in enforcing the law—including state court trial judges and clerks, medical and nursing boards, the Texas Attorney General, and others—were sued.  

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 10, 2021—even as Roe v. Wade still stood—the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to block the law and its vigilante scheme.  

Commenting about the ruling, Hearron, who argued the case before the Court, said, “The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts are powerless to protect constitutional rights in the face of a devious state scheme that hands over state enforcement power to private citizens. The Court has effectively endorsed Texas’s efforts to subvert the U.S. Constitution.”

Where do abortion laws stand now?

After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by StateAfter Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State link

After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State

Abortion is Now Illegal in Texas

Abortion is currently illegal in Texas in nearly all circumstances, since the state’s “trigger” abortion ban took effect in August 2022, after Roe was overturned. The ban prohibits nearly all abortions and carries severe criminal penalties imposed on those who violate the law. Under the law, doctors could face up to 99 years in prison for providing a prohibited abortion.  

With abortion banned entirely in 12 states, including many across the South, Texans face the longest travel times in the country as they are forced to drive an average of over seven hours one-way to reach an abortion provider outside of the state. Pregnant Texans are also being denied care at hospitals in the state despite facing life-threatening conditions. Since S.B. 8 went into effect, maternal morbidity has increased in Texas hospitals. Many other Texans have been unable to travel out of state and have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term or attempt an abortion on their own.  

The impact has fallen hardest on communities that already face significant barriers to accessing health care, including Black and brown communities and people living on low incomes.

Tags: Texas vigilante law, Gomez v. Braid, Texas abortion ban, Texas abortion law, Texas S.B. 8, Dr. Alan Braid

Related Posts

Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Block Texas Law That Would Prohibit Almost All Abortion Care in the State

The Center and its partners today filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to block Texas's radical new abortion ban before it takes effect September 1.

Abortion,United States,In the Courts
Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Block Texas Law That Would Prohibit Almost All Abortion Care in the State

Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton: Ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

This ruling upheld a Texas ban on the standard procedure for abortion care after about 14-15 weeks. Read the full...

Abortion,United States,In the Courts

Texas Abortion Ban Takes Effect, Ending Almost All Abortion Care in the State

The Center and its partners await action by the U.S. Supreme Court on its emergency request to stop the law...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts
Texas Abortion Ban Takes Effect, Ending Almost All Abortion Care in the State

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2022)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up