I'm not familiar with how the accredited investor laws work, but at least from your description, and reporting on the Texas abortion law, there do seem to be crucial differences beyond one just being "a less obscure topic".
The Texas abortion law basically deputizes anyone in the state to be an "abortion tattler", except for state officials who are expressly prohibited from enforcing the law. That "innovation" is what is fundamentally new about this law and why some argue it evades federal judicial review, and that seems very different from accredited investor laws.
> The Texas abortion law basically deputizes anyone in the state to be an "abortion tattler"...
Actually, I don't think they are required to be in the state of Texas. At least, all the descriptions of the bill I have seen have not mentioned that requirement.
Your comment makes me wonder whether SCOTUS could have just nullified the part of the law which forbade state actors from filing suit. That could have given standing to sue the AG, for instance.
The Texas abortion law basically deputizes anyone in the state to be an "abortion tattler", except for state officials who are expressly prohibited from enforcing the law. That "innovation" is what is fundamentally new about this law and why some argue it evades federal judicial review, and that seems very different from accredited investor laws.