Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

op., at 12).  I refrained, however, from criticizing the effi-
cacy  of  any  relief  stemming  from  the  limited  slice  of  this
particular case that the Court allowed to proceed.  I hoped
that even with the case narrowed, the District Court could 
enter some mitigating relief, though not the complete relief
to which I believed the petitioners were entitled. 

I was wrong.  Today’s decision shows that any hope that 
Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s
guarantees in this case was illusory.  As it turns out, Texas 
did not even have to amend its law to sidestep the minimal 
relief this Court left available.  Instead, Texas wagered that 
this  Court  did  not  mean  what  little  it  said  in  Whole 
Woman’s Health II or,  at least, that this Court  would not 
stand behind those words, meager as they were.  That bet 
has paid off.  Despite this Court’s protestations over the “ex-
traordinary solicitude” it gave this case and the narrowness
of  any  dispute,  it  accepts  yet  another  dilatory  tactic  by
Texas.  As a result, the District Court will remain powerless 
to address S. B. 8’s unconstitutional chill on abortion care, 
likely for months to come.

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave dis-
service to women in Texas, who have a right to control their 
own bodies.  I will not stand by silently as a State continues
to nullify this constitutional guarantee.  I dissent.