By Dave Andrusko
I’m no lawyer but I suspect that when 20 state attorneys general submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in defense of pro-life Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s right to defend his state’s abortion laws, the Court pays attention.
The law at issue– House Bill 454– is Kentucky’s ban on the hideous practice of dismembering living unborn babies.
And this was exactly what happened December 7 in the case of Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Petitioner v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al.
The twenty state coalition, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, consists of Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
The 21-page amicus brief argues that in denying Attorney General Cameron’s request to defend the law, the Sixth Circuit “allowed the unilateral capitulation of a single unelected official to be the final word on whether a duly enacted law of Kentucky would be invalidated (and thus de facto repealed)…even though another Kentucky official—its Attorney General, who has unquestioned authority to represent Kentucky in federal court—sought to defend the constitutionality of the statute on the merit.”
AG Cameron’s office provided an overview of what happened and why it’s important that other attorneys general are “recognizing the importance of allowing our office to defend the constitutionality of Kentucky’s laws,” as Cameron explained
The amicus brief supports Attorney General Cameron’s petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, which asks the court to review the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ refusal to allow the Attorney General to defend House Bill 454. The law bans the Dilation and Evacuation procedure (D&E) on a living unborn child, which involves tearing a living child apart while in the womb.
Representing Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) earlier this year, the Attorney General’s office argued in defense of the law earlier this year before the Sixth Circuit. Here’s the key:
The Sixth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction against the law, and when CHFS Secretary Eric Friedlander chose not to appeal, Attorney General Cameron moved to intervene to ensure the law continued to receive a full defense all the way through the United States Supreme Court.
As the amicus brief argues
By a 2-1 vote, a Sixth Circuit panel allowed the unilateral capitulation of a single unelected official [Eric Friedlander] to be the final word on whether a duly enacted law of Kentucky would be invalidated (and thus de facto repealed). It did so even though another Kentucky official—its Attorney General, who has unquestioned authority to represent Kentucky in federal court—sought to defend the constitutionality of the statute on the merits. …
Having declared a state law unconstitutional on the eve of a forthcoming opinion from this Court on the same subject matter, the panel majority then took unprecedented steps to slam the courthouse doors shut in the face of Kentucky’s duly elected chief legal officer, who was specifically empowered under state law to continue the defense of the state’s laws. This departure from ordinary procedures— and fundamental principles of federalism and democracy—fairly cries out for a summary reversal.