• PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Serious question, can the DOJ go after laws like this or is there another watchdog type, federal agency that could?

    • mateomaui@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like an easy DOJ target with all the unconstitutional restriction of moving within and across borders for reasons that are none of anyone’s damn business.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If this were just about something the state itself controls and the civil rights of the citizens, then I’m not sure. However, I’m sure Texas takes a bunch of money from the federal government to maintain its highways, so that’s a clearer way.

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the civil rights of the citizens

        I think pregnant women are citizens and have civil rights. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean.

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m saying if it’s just an injury to the citizens and their civil rights, I’m not sure if the DoJ has cause to bring it, but that it may wind up falling on a private citizen to file suit.

          Since it’s a civil rights violation they can likely bring it in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But I don’t really remember a situation where the DoJ stepped in directly, only in enforcing things after the fact when there’s further obstruction.

          • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which kind of makes sense, they’ll let the state play it out first. But when it’s this egregious and we don’t have a clown in office, I was hoping they would crack down.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      With current standing laws, not really. The court could decide to ignore the requirement, but they historically haven’t.