(WASHINGTON) — Two months to the day after allowing Texas to impose a near-total ban on abortions, the Supreme Court on Monday was openly skeptical of state law SB8 over concerns about its unprecedented enforcement mechanism and what it could mean for other state attempts to limit constitutional rights.

The Texas law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, delegates enforcement to everyday citizens — rather than state officials — who can file civil lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an unlawful procedure. Its state sponsors deliberately intended to circumvent federal court review, knowing that such a ban on its face violates constitutionally-protected abortion rights.

A majority of justices, during the more than three hours of oral arguments on Monday, signaled that Texas abortion providers have a strong case for asking federal courts to put SB8 on hold.

“There’s a loophole that’s been exploited here, or used here,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, referring to a 1908 Supreme Court case — Ex parte Young — that established a precedent for people to sue state officials in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.

Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who both voted in September with the five-justice majority allowing SB8 to take effect, voiced particular discomfort with the idea that a state could outsource enforcement of a law to citizens in an attempt to circumvent precedent.

“So the question becomes, should we extend the principle of Ex parte Young to, in essence, close that loophole?” Kavanaugh said. He added that the “whole sweep” of the case suggested such an outcome.

“I think there is language in Ex parte Young that favors you,” Barrett told the abortion providers’ attorney Marc Hearron.

It was not clear how quickly the Supreme Court will hand down a decision in the case. Clinics across Texas have said they have discontinued most abortion care services while the legal battle plays out.

If the justices side with the Texas abortion providers, they could return the case to a federal district court for proceedings, or the court itself could issue an order blocking SB8 as litigation continues.

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone insisted that state officials have nothing to do with SB8 enforcement and that state courts are the proper venues to litigate challenges to SB8 on a case by case, plaintiff by plaintiff, basis. Fourteen state suits are underway. Those individual cases could ultimately end up in federal court, Stone said.

Petitioners want “an injunction against SB8, the law, itself,” said Stone. “They can’t receive that because federal courts don’t issue injunctions against laws but against officials enforcing laws. No Texas executive official enforces SB8 either, and so no Texas executive official may be enjoined.”

Justice Elena Kagan took direct aim at Texas’ argument, warning that allowing the state’s scheme to stand would be an open invitation to other states to circumvent other disfavored constitutional rights.

“Essentially, we would be like, you know, we are open, you are open for business. There’s nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don’t like, go ahead,” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the inability of citizens to preemptively defend their constitutional rights because the Texas law doesn’t have a clear enforcer until an individual claim is made.

“It’s a question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they’ll be subject to suit for [a significant financial sum]. That — that takes a lot of fortitude to undertake the prohibited conduct in that case. And under the system, it is only by undertaking the prohibited conduct that you can get into federal court,” Roberts said.

While many justices did appear open to federal curbs on SB8, there was no clear consensus on who their opinion should target or who a federal court could enjoin.

“What relief are you requesting?” Kagan asked Hearron.

“We are requesting an… injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the [state court] clerks across the State of Texas, as well as injunctive relief against the state executive officials for their residual authority to enforce SB8,” Hearron replied.

Several justices seemed disinclined to enjoin judges or clerks from simply doing their jobs, which are not inherently adversarial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that issuing an injunction against the attorney general of Texas could effectively cover all citizens who might bring lawsuits under SB8. They are “acting in concert” with the state, Sotomayor insisted.

“Why wouldn’t these private individuals be considered private attorneys generals?” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “One thing that seems rather implicit on the other side is that they are in effect, if not in designation by law, attorneys generals because they are enforcing a statewide policy.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a federal court could target any “potential private plaintiffs” in Texas. “The state incentivizes their conduct,” she said. “No constitutional right is safe” if such a model is allowed to stand.

The implications for other constitutional rights and for Supreme Court precedents and authority were of particular concern to Kavanaugh, who could play a decisive role in disposition of SB8.

He cited free speech rights, freedom of religion, and Second Amendment rights, as potentially under threat, referring to an amicus brief filed by a conservative firearms group worried about a decision upholding SB8.

“The theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights,” Kavanaugh said.

The justices seemed broadly disengaged with arguments by the Biden administration — in a separate challenge to SB8 argued Monday — that the federal government has sweeping ability to challenge a discriminatory state law in federal court.

“Has the U.S. government ever asserted ‘equity’?” wondered Justice Neil Gorsuch skeptically.

“Is there any instance in which the U.S. can do what it’s doing now?” questioned Thomas.

The court is expected to issue an expedited decision in the coming days or weeks.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Just before the 2020 presidential election, a bus carrying Biden-Harris campaign staffers and volunteers through Texas was tailed by Trump supporters, some of whom were “driving in a way that appeared to be an attempt to push the bus off the road onto the shoulder,” according to court documents.

A lawsuit was filed Friday by former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis and two former campaign staffers who were on the bus, along with the bus driver, alleging negligence by the San Marcos Police Department.

“For at least ninety minutes, including during the entirety of the stretch of I-35 inside the San Marcos city lines, the Trump Train pursued and terrorized the Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit alleges. “Plaintiffs tried to get help. They repeatedly called 911. They requested police escorts. San Marcos refused to help.”

The suit alleges that the San Marcos Police Department laughed and refused to provide assistance when a staffer called in to report the situation on Oct. 30 2020. ABC News has reached out to the police department for comment.

“I am so annoyed at New Braunfels for doing this to us,” a dispatcher said to one of the police officers over the radio, according to a 911 transcript included in court documents. New Braunfels is a city next to San Marcos, and the bus was heading over the city line.

“They have their officers escorting this Biden bus, essentially, and the Trump Train is cutting in between vehicles and driving — being aggressive and slowing them down to like 20 or 30 miles per hour,” the dispatcher reportedly said. “And they want you guys to respond to help.”

Matt Daenzer, a corporal with the department who is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, reportedly replied, “No, we’re not going to do it. We will close patrol that, but we’re not going to escort a bus.”

The dispatcher, according to the transcript, told Daenzer the caller was “really worked up over it, and he’s like breathing hard and stuff, like, ‘they’re being really aggressive.’ OK. Calm down.”

Daenzer agreed and reportedly told the dispatcher, “Yeah, well, drive defensively, and it’ll be great.”

When the dispatcher informed the campaign staffer who called 911 for help that the San Marcos Police Department would not provide a police escort, the unnamed staffer replied, “They’ve cut in on me multiple times. They’ve threatened my life on multiple occasions with vehicular collision. I would like an escort immediately.”

The lawsuit alleges the “Trump Train” went unchecked without any police escorting the bus.

“Despite these multiple calls for help from Plaintiffs and others, for the roughly 30 minutes it took to drive through San Marcos on the main highway that runs through it, there were no officers from San Marcos or any other police cars in sight — not on the I-35 exit or entrance ramps, nor on either side of the highway,” it states.

When then-President Donald Trump learned about the situation after videos of the incident were posted to Twitter, he retweeted a video and wrote, “I LOVE TEXAS!,” the court documents also state.

Also listed as defendants in the lawsuit are San Marcos Director of Public Safety Chase Stapp, San Marcos Police Department Assistant Chief of Police Brandon Winkenwerder and the City of San Marcos.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.