Mike Sacks
@mikesacks.bsky.social
23K followers
760 following
1.9K posts
NY-17 Congressional Candidate. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Second-Best dad ever.
mikesacksforcongress.com
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Mike Sacks
Reposted by Mike Sacks
![while also "[t]o the extent practical... encourag[ing] family participation."
42 U.S.C. § 300(a). The question before us is whether Title X preempts a Texas law giving parents the right to consent to their teenagers' obtaining contraceptives. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 151.001(a)(6).
We hold that Title X does not preempt Texas's law. A grantee can comply with both. Moreover, Title X's goal (encouraging family participation in teens' receiving family planning services) is not undermined by Texas's goal (empowering parents to consent to their teen's receiving contraceptives). To the contrary, the two laws reinforce each other. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment declaring that Title X does not preempt Texas's parental consent law.
In doing so, we agree with the district court that the plaintiff, Alexander Deanda, has standing. If Title X preempts Texas's law, as the government maintains, it would nullify Deanda's right to consent to his children's medical care. That invasion of Deanda's state-created right alone creates Article II! injury. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 342 (2016);
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975).
Because we agree on preemption, we need not reach the district court's holding that Title X violates Deanda's constitutional right to direct his children's upbringing.
We depart from the district court on one point, however. Its final judgment partially vacated a regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 59.10(b), which forbids Title X grantees from notifying parents or obtaining their consent. The regulation, promulgated after Deanda filed suit, was not challenged by Deanda under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") or otherwise.
Nor did the summary judgment order address the regulation's validity or preemptive force. We therefore conclude that the court erred by vacating the regulation under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the APA.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreifnawn2kvmmgdpno6pww4hl6cng6tcuecqzhfaryhxjrtzy34ekpe@jpeg)
Reposted by Mike Sacks
Reposted by Mike Sacks
