Stephen Breyer says it is no time to lose faith in the Supreme Court The federal government's position boils down to a simple - but erroneous - allegation: a law that avoids pre-screening. execution by a federal district court is an open threat to ourre constitutional order, wrote the Republican State Attorney General. This is historical nonsense. Challenges to the law that bans abortion after six weeks - often before most women know they are pregnant - have ricocheted through the courts. A Supreme Court has allowed the law to take hold. 'come into effect on September 1 as part of a different challenge. But a trial court agreed to block it on October 6. Within a two-day window, some clinics resumed performing abortions, but were barred from doing so when the U.S. 5th Court of Appeals intervened to temporarily freeze the trial judge's order. Now the appeals committee will decide on its own a more formal injunction needs to be issued in the next few days.This could go back to the Supreme Court. The vast wrangling is due in part to the fact that the law was written expressly to make it difficult to challenge in federal court. This is because Texas state officials are not authorized to enforce it. Instead, private citizens - from anywhere in the country - can take civil action against anyone who helps a pregnant person seek an abortion against the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland, announcing the lawsuit last month called the law a draft and said it was clearly unconstitutional under a long-standing Supreme Court precedent. United have the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a program law specifically designed to prevent the assertion of those rights, a he declared.bre, Judge Robert Pitman of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas echoed this sentiment, blocking the law and calling it blatantly unconstitutional.