It stinks for sure, but the sense I’m getting is that the Fanatic Five on the court just whiffed on the first complaint because they want a better one to use for striking down the Texas law. Like maybe the DOJ lawsuit. This Texas case probably isn’t the state law they want Roe to be decided on. The Mississippi law under review is a cleaner kill shot.
But Larkin does not stand for the proposition that a state cannot delegate its power to any private person or entity, notwithstanding Larry Tribe’s current efforts to spin it that way. The Court specifically held that this specific delegation at issue was unlawful because it violated the Establishment Clause to give veto power to the church. There is no Establishment Clause problem with SB 8.
No, there is no such body of jurisprudence.
… or perhaps the ever-delightful game of grabbing your arm and flipping it back towards you while chanting “stop hitting yourself! Why are you hitting yourself?”
There is no “private right of action” without the apparatus of the state courts
Dear Texas, It’s kind of hard to pitch yourself as the state for the 21st century economy when you insist on governing like it’s the 19th century.
— Dan Rather (@DanRather) September 12, 2021
“19th century”? Dan Rather is being far too kind. Texas is acting as though Ferdinand and Isabella are still in power.
It seems obvious that either these private citizens acting to enforce SB8 are ‘deputized’ by the legislature and therefore are state officials prohibited by SB8 itself, or they are simply vigilantes acting under false color of the law and as such are violating constitutional civil rights. What other alternative analysis is there?
By the end of September, the administration is anticipating the arrival of 65,000 Afghan refugees to the United States.
“And how was your day, dear?”
“Same-o same-o. We’re planning to attack Biden for the invasion of the refugees.”
“Is there an invasion? Should we build a cellar?”
“Hell no, there’s no invasion. We have to convince everyone that Biden is evil incarnate.”
“Oh, Same-o. Same-o. Would you like a burrito, dear?”
The civilians would plainly be acting as authorized agents of the state in enforcing the state’s prohibition on post-heartbeat abortions. That makes the state amenable to suit as the principal of its vigilante agents.
And even if you don’t construe the vigilantes as agents of the state, they have no standing to pursue claims in court because they have no suffered any individualized injury from anyone else’s abortion. Vigilante standing is not a thing.
And finally, the courts would plainly be state actors enforcing an unconstitutional statute. All the more reason the state is a proper defendant, despite its attempt to disclaim enforcement power.
Yes…
The prevailing SCOTUS jurisprudence…
IOKIYAR…
Really like your argument, and completely agree : - ) However…
Vigilantes are people too, no?
As are virtually all criminals. 
It’s almost like there are powerful groups in our country who want to continue oppressing weaker/more vulnerable groups for their own benefit…
And that’s the REAL Susan B. Anthony, not the Susan B. Anthony the right-to-life folks have appropriated for their own purposes.
And the most junior justice on the Court wonders why the majority is seen as a bunch of partisan hacks…
If the state is allowing you collect money for suing someone you don’t know over an action that doesn’t injure you, how’s that not acing in the state’s interest? The state wrote the law, set the rules and now wants to say it isn’t involved??
My sincere apologies all, but the reference to “Larkin” got this stuck in my brain, and so I figured, why not share?
I am 100% certain that Brown v. Board of Ed. will be overturned within the next 10 years.