Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Biden confronts campus protests; Trump hedges on accepting election results

Kristi Noem just won’t stop talking about killing her dog

Noem’s dog-killing isn’t popular, though Trump supporters are divided

The new cure-all for vacation excess: the IV drip 

What’s the best bus to New York? We tested 5 for comfort and value.

Adaptive equipment is making national parks more inclusive

Strangers help Sesame Street puppeteer after heirloom necklace was stolen

Teen grabs wheel when driver passes out and school bus veers into traffic

Cat climbed into Amazon return box, found alive 630 miles away

Ask Amy: My boyfriend just confessed he’s almost $20,000 in debt

Miss Manners: Is it inappropriate to reach out to old girlfriends?

Carolyn Hax: Longtime friend won’t forgive being last-minute canceled for a guy

The Post endorses April McClain Delaney and Tom Royals for Maryland’s 6th District

On Press Freedom Day, little to celebrate for Hong Kong’s journalists

Young Georgians want to be part of Europe. Their government is in the way.

The New York Times, alone in its outrage over access to Biden

The ‘Access Hollywood’ video cemented Trump’s air of invincibility

Stephen A. Smith would like even more of your attention

In photos: At least 39 dead as historic flooding hits southern Brazil

Sea level rise brings new era of dangerous flooding

Michael Cohen keeps broadcasting despite being a witness

In a pinch, the Nationals finally find some offense

Is Pastis as good as our food critic thought? He sent spies to find out.

The Capitals, a team in transition, know what they want this offseason

Confident of victory over Ukraine, Russia exhibits Western war trophies

Two women are seeking Mexico’s presidency. But the race is about a man.

Hamas in Cairo for hostage talks as Israel briefs aid agencies on Rafah

Trump Media auditor charged by SEC with ‘massive fraud’

Google’s empire is massive. A judge will soon rule if it’s a monopoly.

Five tech products we actually like

See more coverage in your recommendations

Get the weekly Campaign Moment newsletter

Set alerts for major election developments

Election 2024

The Campaign Moment newsletter

Politics alerts

The Biden administration sued Texas on Thursday to try to block the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, which bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a woman terminate her pregnancy.

The law <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell/2021/09/02/ecbd1124-0c17-11ec-aea1-42a8138f132a_story.html?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_6" target="_blank" title="www.washingtonpost.com">took effect Sept. 1</a>, effectively ending most abortions in the nation’s second-most-populous state, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/justice-department-sues-texas-to-block-six-week-abortion-ban/fa557093-7f25-450c-bf7a-7ea35aaace40/" target="_blank" title="www.washingtonpost.com">suit filed by the Justice Department in federal court </a>in Austin asks a judge to “protect the rights that Texas has violated” by declaring the abortion law unconstitutional and issuing an injunction blocking its enforcement. At a news conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the ban “is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent.”

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear,” said Garland, warning that what he called the “bounty hunter” element of the law may become “a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights or judicial precedents.” The U.S. government, Garland added, has a responsibility “to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.”

A spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) defended the law and accused the Biden administration of acting for political reasons — to distract Americans from the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life,” press secretary Renae Eze said in a statement.

[FAQ: What to know about the Texas abortion law]

The case has been assigned to District Court Judge Robert L. Pitman, who is already deeply familiar with the law:  he is also presiding over a separate pending legal challenge to the abortion ban brought by a coalition of abortion providers and advocates.

In that case, Pitman had scheduled a hearing to consider whether to block enforcement of the ban before it took effect. But the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit called off the hearing.

On Friday, the appeals court issued a new order saying it would hear a preliminary appeal of that earlier case on an expedited basis. The 5th Circuit's initial action led to an emergency petition to the Supreme Court, which <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf" title="www.supremecourt.gov">decided 5-4 to allow the Texas law to stand </a>while the litigation continues.

The Biden administration’s suit argues that the Texas law violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, saying the measure deprives women in Texas of the right to an abortion and imposes an “undue burden” — and that the Constitution generally takes precedence over state laws.

[Read the Justice Department’s lawsuit]

The suit also says the measure interferes with the federal government’s constitutional obligation to provide access to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, to people in the custody or care of federal agencies or government contractors, including at prisons.

President Biden and Democrats in Congress have criticized the Texas law and the initial refusal of the high court to block the ban.

Any action Pitman takes in response to the lawsuit is likely to be appealed to the 5th Circuit and, eventually, to return to the high court.

A dozen other states have passed legislation banning abortions after about six weeks into pregnancy. But federal judges have stopped those measures from taking effect, finding the laws inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to choose abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

[Texas created a blueprint to restrict abortion. Other red states may follow.]

The Texas law was designed to withstand a similar preemptive legal challenge. It intentionally bars enforcement by state government officials, whom abortion providers would typically target in a lawsuit. Instead, the law empowers private citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after the six-week window. Individuals  can receive a $10,000 award if their lawsuits are successful. They can sue abortion providers, clinic workers or those who help a woman pay for the procedure or drive her to a clinic.

Joel Martinez

In its 5-to-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said abortion providers and civil rights groups had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law.” But the court allowed the ban to take effect while the legal battle plays out, saying the abortion providers and advocates who had challenged the law could not show they were suing the right people.

Their lawsuit targeted state court judges and court clerks, who would have to accept lawsuits alleging violations of the ban for those suits to go forward. The majority said it was premature for the court to step in because it is “unclear whether the named defendants can or will seek to enforce the Texas law.”

All of the dissenting justices wrote separately, with the court’s three liberal justices characterizing the Texas law as an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-roe-texas/2021/09/02/ad8c4d58-0bf4-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.html?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_38" target="_blank" title="www.washingtonpost.com">end run around the Constitution </a>and court precedent.

[Justice Breyer calls Supreme Court decision on Texas case ‘very, very, very wrong’]

Ken Cedeno

Garland said Monday that his agency would do all it could to guarantee access to abortion in Texas. But advocates said the pledge lacked specifics; they <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/texas-abortion-law-merrick-garland/2021/09/07/c277c700-1000-11ec-882f-2dd15a067dc4_story.html" target="_blank" title="www.washingtonpost.com">urged a direct challenge</a>.

Asked Thursday about the intense pressure from Democrats to take action, Garland said the department “does not file lawsuits based on pressure. We carefully evaluated the law and the facts, and this complaint expresses our view of the law and the facts.”

The lawsuit seeks to stop not only the state but also private individuals who would bring civil lawsuits to enforce the Texas law.

In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) tweeted, “Today the Biden Administration sued every individual in Texas” and said Biden should not meddle in a state’s “sovereign rights.”

[Analysis: Supreme Court’s order on Texas ban shows threat to Roe v. Wade]

Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas law school, called the lawsuit “an ambitious and powerful” effort “to protect the constitutional rights of citizens.” The question, he said, is whether citizens who try to enforce the law are “agents of the state and therefore subject to the injunction the government is seeking.”

“That’s a very broad request for relief,” said Vladeck, who has been publicly critical of the way the law was designed to avoid judicial review, “but also perhaps necessary given the novel and cynical procedural traps Texas created.”

Supporters of the law put out a statement criticizing the federal lawsuit even before Garland’s news conference. They called the suit a “desperate attempt” to block the measure.

Biden “is a puppet of the radical abortion agenda, and his DOJ will quickly find that they do not have jurisdiction to stop the Texas Heartbeat Act,” said Elizabeth Graham, vice president of Texas Right to Life.

[Can Texans still get abortions out of state? We answered your questions.]

The law is already having an effect. Abortion clinics in Texas say they are abiding by the six-week ban and sending women who are further along in their pregnancies across state lines to seek the procedure.

Texas Right to Life, which backed the law, was collecting anonymous tips on its website about potential violations of the law, but so far no lawsuits have been filed against abortion providers in state court.

If such a lawsuit is filed, it would almost certainly be challenged, creating a new path for the constitutionality of the abortion ban to be reviewed by the courts.

Several advocacy organizations that help women access abortions already have won temporary restraining orders in local courts that bar Texas Right to Life and others from using the law to sue them.

But those court orders are limited to the people involved and do not stop other individuals or organizations from filing lawsuits against anyone involved in an abortion banned under the Texas law.

Pulitzer Prize co-finalist for Feature Writing, 2017

Pulitzer Prize co-finalist for International Reporting, 2017

Part of team that won Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, 2018

Part of team that won Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, 2022

"October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election"

McGill University, BA 

Devlin Barrett writes about the FBI and the Justice Department, and is the author of "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election." He was part of reporting teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 and 2022. In 2017 he was a co-finalist for the Pulitzer for Feature Writing and the Pulitzer for International Reporting. 

Devlin Barrett

Nieman fellow, Harvard University

Cornell University

Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland.