It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border. I'm certainly not a lawyer though and would be interested to hear if there is any precedent that says otherwise.
I don't know much about laws on that topic, but it seems to be a similar case to me.
* If you buy something legal in one state
* and you then travel to another state (where its illegal) with that item
* then you have broken the law and can go to jail.
Its not the doing something in state-a and then traveling to state-b. Its the traveling to state-b with something illegal in state-b.
Does that make more sense?
Federally, marijuana transport across state lines is still trafficking in illegal narcotics. That the States don't help enforce it doesn't change a thing.
Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.
States enforce laws across state lines all the time, doing so for abortion - now considered a crime - would be no different. Several states, including Texas, have or are attempting to pass laws making it illegal to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. South Carolina is banning websites which describe how to get an abortion. So this affects not only freedom of travel, but freedom of speech.
In both of your examples, the states are controlling the behavior of people in those states. Texas is controlling people in its state (and leaving). South Carolina would be banning things brought into its state (information). I think both of these examples, if they are as plainly stated as you mentioned, are illegal for different reasons (interstate commerce clause) but I wouldn't think this is an example of states policing actions that happened in other states.
But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean. Take your previous example but instead imagine the woman from Texas took a trip with her husband to New Mexico and paid a hitman to murder him during the trip. The suspected hitman would most certainly be arrested on a layover in Texas (or any other state) but that state wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder that happened in New Mexico. The suspect would instead be extradited to New Mexico to face charges there.
> Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.
I certainly agree there and definitely cannot speak to the risk assessment that abortion providers might unfortunately be contending with but I can't imagine that this will remain a question for long. Federal courts definitely do not like legal ambiguities between states.
Only because the two states have the same law regarding murder.
More comparable would be the prosecution of internationally-travelled kiddy-diddlers. Though the laws in the foreign country may have allowed such behaviour, itis illegal in the US and the prosecution will be in the US. The diddler is not extradited to the permissive country.
>But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean.
yes, that's exactly what might happen.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111383520/texas-abortion-law...
Thereby, my most pessimum view would be if you run an abortion clinic, it may well behoove you to not take certain routes if you'd like to avoid being a test case for interstate judicial proceedings until the Federal legislature sorts things out, or a Constitutional Amendment is ratified by 2/3 of the States. It blows, but that's Government of, by, and for the People.
Absolutely nothing says the People's definition of reasonable is going to mesh with any one person's.
Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.
At some point, our system has started to look more like a system mutated through jurisprudence, rather than through sane collective action via legislation, which seems to be held up by the political machinations of special interest groups/the two main political parties, and less accessible/approachable by most constituents apparently; which leaves these types of judiciary precedent golf games to be the seemingly more accessible form of legal landscape change.
We're looking more like a country ruled by judges than by anything resembling some sort of sense in terms of how we architected the Government.
I'm not even sure I could pinpoint where the specific hangup is, or suggest a reasonable change without several years to really absorb the structural aspects of the system, and painstakingly listing out the inputs/outputs.