Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 34

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

3 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

Health and Safety Code, which includes S. B. 8.  See 22 Tex. 
Admin. Code §190.8(7) (“the Board shall take appropriate 
disciplinary  action  against  a  physician  who  violates  . . . 
Chapter 171, Texas Health and Safety Code”); S. B. 8, 87th 
Leg., Reg. Sess. (2021) (amending Chapter 171 of the Texas 
Health and Safety Code by adding Subchapter H).  Under 
Texas law, then, the Attorney General maintains authority 
to “take enforcement actions” based on violations of S. B. 8.  
Ante,  at  12.    He  accordingly  also  falls  within  the  scope  of 
Young’s exception to sovereign immunity.  Ante, at 9–10. 
  The same goes for Penny Clarkston, a court clerk.  Court 
clerks,  of  course,  do  not  “usually”  enforce  a  State’s  laws.  
Ante, at 5.  But by design, the mere threat of even unsuc-
cessful  suits  brought  under  S.  B.  8  chills  constitutionally 
protected  conduct,  given  the  peculiar  rules  that  the  State 
has imposed.  Under these circumstances, the court clerks 
who issue citations and docket S. B. 8 cases are unavoidably 
enlisted in the scheme to enforce S. B. 8’s unconstitutional 
provisions,  and  thus  are  sufficiently  “connect[ed]”  to  such 
enforcement to be proper defendants.  Young, 209 U. S., at 
157.  The role that clerks play with respect to S. B. 8 is dis-
tinct  from  that  of  the  judges.    Judges  are  in  no  sense  ad-
verse to the parties subject to the burdens of S. B. 8.  But 
as a practical matter clerks are—to the extent they “set[ ] in 
motion the machinery” that imposes these burdens on those 
sued under S. B. 8.  Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of 
Bay View, 395 U. S. 337, 338 (1969).   
  The majority contends that this conclusion cannot be rec-
onciled with Young, pointing to language in Young that sug-
gests it would be improper to enjoin courts from exercising 
jurisdiction over cases.  Ante, at 7–8; Young, 209 U. S., at 
163.  Decisions after Young, however, recognize that suits 
to  enjoin  state  court  proceedings  may  be  proper.    See 
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 243 (1972); see also Pul-
liam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522, 525 (1984).  And this conclusion 
is consistent with the entire thrust of Young itself.  Just as