California Gov. Gavin Newsom held up a mirror to right-wing extremists over the weekend by calling for his state to update its ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons by modeling it on the Texas law that prohibits most abortions.
With his proposal, Newsom offered an example of how the structure of the Texas law could be used to circumvent the federal courts and avoid legal scrutiny on issues involving any and all constitutional rights. Similar to the abortion law, Newsom would put enforcement of the assault-weapons ban in the hands of private citizens by empowering them to sue anyone who violates the prohibition and offering them rewards of up to $10,000 per violation for bringing lawsuits in civil court. Newsom’s announcement came a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion providers in Texas could not sue most state officials, thereby allowing the state to sidestep lawsuits in federal court.
“SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!” Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted. “If that’s the precedent, then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.”
We trust that Newsom’s purpose here is to reveal the dangers of Texas’ bounty law, as opposed to following extremist Republicans down this path. He had harshly criticized the Texas law earlier, calling it a cynical attempt to circumvent federal rights.
He was right then, and there’s no need to change course.
The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, outlaws nearly all abortions after six weeks gestation, a time when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant. During arguments before the Supreme Court in November, most of the justices questioned the bounty system and raised concerns over how it could be used to inhibit other rights. Friday’s ruling, in which the court allowed a lawsuit over SB8 to continue but kept the private-citizen enforcement mechanism in place, prompted alarm from legal experts about how permutations of it could be applied.
“While SB8 is about abortion, this private enforcement scheme implicates every other constitutional right,” Marc Hearron, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday during a call with reporters. “If a state can prohibit the exercise of any constitutional right that’s disfavored in that state and get around federal court review by allowing private citizens to sue someone for exercising that constitutional right, then it’s hard to say where this scheme ends. Today’s decision is a marker that says every constitutional right is now at risk.”
Newsom, in showing how else the Texas approach could be used, underscored the fact that any state could use civil lawsuits to effectively outlaw any activity irrespective of constitutional rights.
Think of how this could be abused. Mississippi could allow citizens to sue Black residents for voting. Oklahoma could allow citizens to sue anyone teaching about the role that racism played in American history. Florida could allow citizens to sue any newspaper that writes a negative editorial about Gov. Ron DeSantis.
On the flip side, Oregon could allow citizens to sue anyone for allowing their children to privately pray in school. (Yes, that is still a constitutional right, contrary to the hyperbole coming from the right.) Vermont could allow citizens to sue anyone for wearing a MAGA hat or a Let’s Go Brandon T-shirt.
It’s worth stating again: No constitutional right is safe if the Texas law is allowed to stand. It opens a Pandora’s box for performative politicians to casually strip rights of any kind simply to get elected.
This is a form of tyranny from all sides. Newsom’s announcement appears to be designed to highlight the implications of such attempts at restricting constitutional rights.
It’s why the Firearms Policy Coalition, a California-based gun rights group, filed a legal brief in October opposing the bounty law. After Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, a lawyer for the group warned about it being used to target gun rights.
“Every bad idea has copycats,” the attorney, Erik Jaffe, told The Texas Tribune. “I have no doubt that legislatures hostile to firearms and the Second Amendment will use either some or all of the tactics that Texas has used.”
The Texas law also plays into the hands of Americans who wish to erode the rights and victimize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoints. This only deepens the political divisions that are weakening our nation.
Assuming it was made for the right reasons, Newsom’s announcement is an object lesson for Americans across the entire political spectrum.
The Texas precedent is incredibly dangerous to all Americans, and the Supreme Court should take aggressive action to end this madness.