Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

  Instead,  only  further  questions  follow.    Under  the  peti-
tioners’ theory, would clerks have to assemble a blacklist of 
banned claims subject to immediate dismissal?  What kind 
of inquiry would a state court have to apply to satisfy due 
process before dismissing those suits?  How notorious would 
the alleged constitutional defects of a claim have to be be-
fore a state-court clerk would risk legal jeopardy merely for 
filing it?  Would States have to hire independent legal coun-
sel for their clerks—and would those advisers be the next 
target  of  suits  seeking  injunctive  relief ?    When  a  party 
hales a state-court clerk into federal court for filing a com-
plaint  containing  a  purportedly  unconstitutional  claim, 
how would the clerk defend himself consistent with his eth-
ical obligation of neutrality?  See Tex. Code of Judicial Con-
duct  Canon  3(B)(10)  (2021)  (instructing  judges  and  court 
staff to abstain from taking public positions on pending or 
impending proceedings).  Could federal courts enjoin those 
who perform other ministerial tasks potentially related to 
litigation, like the postal carrier who delivers complaints to 
the courthouse?  Many more questions than answers would 
present themselves if the Court journeyed this way. 
  Our  colleagues  writing  separately  today  supply  no  an-
swers  either.    They  agree  that  state-court  judges  are  not 
proper defendants  in  this  lawsuit  because they  are  “in  no 
sense adverse” to the parties whose cases they decide.  Post, 
at 4 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.).  At the same time, our col-
leagues say they would allow this case to proceed against 
clerks like Ms. Clarkston.  See ibid.; see also post, at 7 (opin-
ion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).  But in doing so they fail to address 
the many remedial questions their path invites.  They ne-
glect to explain how clerks who merely docket S. B. 8 law-
suits  can  be  considered  “adverse  litigants”  for  Article  III 
purposes while the judges they serve cannot.  And they fail 
to  reconcile  their  views  with  Ex parte  Young.   THE  CHIEF 
JUSTICE acknowledges, for example, that clerks set in mo-
tion the “ ‘machinery’ ” of court proceedings.  Post, at 4.  Yet