Seems like an easy DOJ target with all the unconstitutional restriction of
moving within and across borders for reasons that are none of anyone’s damn business.
If this were just about something the state itself controls and the civil rights of the citizens, then I’m not sure. However, I’m sure Texas takes a bunch of money from the federal government to maintain its highways, so that’s a clearer way.
I’m saying if it’s just an injury to the citizens and their civil rights, I’m not sure if the DoJ has cause to bring it, but that it may wind up falling on a private citizen to file suit.
Since it’s a civil rights violation they can likely bring it in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But I don’t really remember a situation where the DoJ stepped in directly, only in enforcing things after the fact when there’s further obstruction.
Which kind of makes sense, they’ll let the state play it out first. But when it’s this egregious and we don’t have a clown in office, I was hoping they would crack down.
Serious question, can the DOJ go after laws like this or is there another watchdog type, federal agency that could?
Seems like an easy DOJ target with all the unconstitutional restriction of moving within and across borders for reasons that are none of anyone’s damn business.
If this were just about something the state itself controls and the civil rights of the citizens, then I’m not sure. However, I’m sure Texas takes a bunch of money from the federal government to maintain its highways, so that’s a clearer way.
I think pregnant women are citizens and have civil rights. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean.
I’m saying if it’s just an injury to the citizens and their civil rights, I’m not sure if the DoJ has cause to bring it, but that it may wind up falling on a private citizen to file suit.
Since it’s a civil rights violation they can likely bring it in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But I don’t really remember a situation where the DoJ stepped in directly, only in enforcing things after the fact when there’s further obstruction.
Which kind of makes sense, they’ll let the state play it out first. But when it’s this egregious and we don’t have a clown in office, I was hoping they would crack down.
With current standing laws, not really. The court could decide to ignore the requirement, but they historically haven’t.
Not a lawyer, but I think not. Never heard of it happening.