Zurawski v. Texas
Plaintiffs seek a declaration and injunctive relief from the court clarifying that the bans do not prevent physicians from providing abortions under statutory exceptions for “medical emergencies” when patients face risks to their life or health. They also request a ruling that any enforcement of the bans by state officials contrary to the court’s declaration would be beyond the scope of the officials’ authority. Additionally, they claim that, to the extent the bans could be read to prohibit abortions in the case of medical emergencies, the bans violate the state constitution’s 1) due course of law clause as to both the rights of patients to abortion when their life or health is at risk and the rights of physicians to perform such abortions (Art. I, § 19) and 2) guarantees of equal rights and privileges and equality based on sex (Art. I, §§ 3 and 3a). A trial court temporarily blocked enforcement of the bans against pregnant people with emergent medical conditions. It separately found that the enforcement provisions of S.B. 8 are unconstitutional. The defendants appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and the court heard oral arguments on November 28, 2023.
Related Commentary
2023’s Most Significant State Constitutional Cases
Over a dozen academics, practitioners, and thought leaders weigh in on the most notable state constitutional cases of the year.
Texas Supreme Court to Determine Scope of ‘Medical Emergency’ Exceptions to Abortion Bans
The plaintiffs include 20 women who were denied abortion care and two doctors who say Texas’s abortion bans prevent them from meeting their ethical obligations.
How Texas Law Lets the State Get Around Injunctions