Judge Austin Reeve Jackson of the 114th District Court in August speaks about a lawsuit from abortion providers that he is named in and that challenges Senate Bill 8, also known as the “heartbeat bill,” at the Axia Center in Tyler. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to deny an emergency appeal from the abortion providers. SB 8 went into effect this Wednesday.

A virtual hearing in the lawsuit abortion providers filed against 114th District Judge Austin Reeve Jackson about Texas’ upcoming fetal heartbeat law has been set for the end of this month.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman signed an order setting a hearing for 9 a.m. Aug. 30 to address the abortion providers’ request to halt the enforcement of Senate Bill 8 until the litigation is resolved.

SB 8, authored by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, goes into effect Sept. 1 to ban abortion in Texas about six weeks into a pregnancy and allows people to sue a physician who performs an abortion and to possibly be awarded no less than $10,000 in statutory damages, according to the text of the bill.

The class-action suit filed by abortion providers, including Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood, on July 13 seeks to stop officials like Jackson, of the 114th District Court, and Smith County District Clerk Penny Clarkston from processing potential abortion-related lawsuits against providers. Right to Life East Texas Director Mark Lee Dickson is also named in the lawsuit.

This past weekend, the abortion providers, who are the plaintiffs, asked Pitman to sign a temporary order halting the enforcement of SB 8.

Whole Woman’s Health and other abortion providers said in the document abortion patients would “immediately suffer irreparable harm in the form of deprivation of their constitutional rights.” The document states either a temporary stop to enforcement or a final judgment in the case is needed before Sept. 1 to ensure the state’s residents’ right to have a safe abortion.

If approved by the federal court’s judge, Jackson, Clarkston and others would be stopped from enforcing the bill as law until a final judgment is reached in the lawsuit.

Prior to the plaintiffs’ request to prevent SB 8 enforcement, Jackson’s attorney, Shane McGuire, on Aug. 4 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit due to lack of jurisdiction.

He stated the plaintiffs cannot make claims against Jackson because of sovereign immunity, meaning a person can’t sue the government without consent from the government.

McGuire called the plaintiffs’ sought-after relief a “thinly-veiled request for this court to tell Judge Jackson how to be a judge.”

Whole Woman’s Health said in court documents the abortion providers are likely to succeed on the merits of due process, equal protection, First Amendment and federal preemption claims.

This Thursday, Whole Woman’s Health and the other abortion providers responded to Jackson and other defendants’ requests to dismiss the lawsuit with a document opposing dismissal.

The plaintiffs state Jackson’s claim of the federal court not having jurisdiction argues that “federal courts are powerless to stop any state from stripping its residents of their federal rights, so long as the state is cunning enough.”

“This Court plainly has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant classes of judges and clerks,” the plaintiffs’ document reads.

In the document, the plaintiffs said judges and clerks, like Jackson and Clarkston, are the officials tasked with enforcing the “heartbeat” law’s provision regarding citizens suing abortion providers.

“Plaintiffs thus have standing to sue those defendants, and those defendants lack any colorable claim to sovereign immunity,” the document states. “defendants’ motions to dismiss should be denied.”

If SB 8 is not blocked before its effective date, the abortion providers write that the potential lawsuits from citizens would “bankrupt” and create a “threat of ruinous monetary penalties and injunctions ordering them to stop providing constitutionally protected health care and to stop supporting abortion patients.”