On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered an attempt by a Republican attorney General to defend Kentucky’s restrictive abortion law. Some liberal justices were skeptical of the decision to allow lower courts to refuse to interfere.

This case isn’t the only one that the court has to decide on abortion. The court is stacked with conservative justices 6-3. is set to consider this term. Already, the court delved into this polarizing topic when it voted 5-4 to not block a Texas law that banned most abortions beginning after six weeks. And the justices will hear arguments Dec. 1 in a pivotal case challenging the right to an abortion before fetal viability established by Roe v. Wade.

Kentucky law H.B. 454The bill would effectively ban second-trimester abortions that are performed using the “dilation & evacuation” method. In 2018, it was adopted by the legislature. However, a district court declared that it was unconstitutional. An appeals court upheld this ruling.

Kentucky’s health secretary opted not to pursue further appeal of the decision — but Daniel Cameron, the state’s Republican attorney general, tried to intervene to seek another hearing in defense of the law. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals of Sixth Circuit, Cameron’s request was too late.

Cameron attorneys submitted a petition to the Supreme Court for consideration of the case. They argued that Cameron as attorney general has “not only the power, he also the duty” jump in to state officials who decline to defend state laws. The high court is asked to overturn the judgement of the appeals court and submit the case for consideration.

Brief in response to Cameron’s request to intervene, the surgical centre argued that Cameron’s application is null and void because Cameron’s attorney general had agreed previously to be bound by its outcome.

The oral arguments Tuesday were not focused on the merits or the Kentucky abortion law. They were more about whether Cameron should have the right to intervene in the case after the appellate court’s ruling was made and the remainder of the administration had chosen out.

“If anyone isn’t predisposed to, and I don’t know where it is, then why shouldn’t he come and defend the law?” Justice Stephen Breyer challenged Cameron’s lawyer, EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Kentucky.

Breyer stated that he could lose and it was possible for him to lose because of what you said. He can make an argument, but I don’t understand why.

Breyer admitted that he had been misled by the facts. Justice Elena Kagan was another liberal who pointed out that much of the dispute stemmed from Kentucky’s leadership switching parties during litigation.

Former-Gov. Matt Bevin, who is a Republican signed H.B. The March 2018 law enacted H.B. The surgical center sued Andy Beshear (a Democrat) shortly afterwards. However, his office was quickly dismissed. Beshear, who was then elected Kentucky governor, was later elected as attorney general. The state health secretary was still involved in this lawsuit and continued to defend it until the appeals ruling when he stated that he wouldn’t.

Cameron’s attorneys told the court that Cameron tried to get an attorney general to step in within 2 days. The secretary then decided not to defend the law.

There’s an actual-world way that this seems to be important. Kagan explained that that is what creates the problem.

She said that Justice Breyer meant, “And I believe that that would have been an extremely harsh jurisdictional ruling’.” If no one wanted to defend the law even though parts of Kentucky’s government still want it to be defended, she stated.

Alexi Kolbi–Molinas from the American Civil Liberties Union said that even though harsh results are not changed by a rule being imposed, they don’t affect whether a jurisdictional law is applied.