Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a85_5h25.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

a stay pending appeal.  2021 WL 4786458, *1 (2021) (per cu-
riam).  Despite the fact that the instant suit presents dis-
tinct issues from those raised in Whole Woman’s Health, the 
Fifth  Circuit  majority  relied  entirely  on  rulings  from  that 
litigation.  The totality of its reasoning was as follows: “The 
emergency motions to stay the preliminary injunction pend-
ing  appeal  are  granted  for  the  reasons  stated  in  Whole 
Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 13 F. 4th 434 (5th Cir. 2021), 
and  Whole  Woman’s  Health  v.  Jackson,  [594  U. S.  ___] 
(2021).”  2021 WL 4786458, *1. 

II 
  Recognizing that Texas’ scheme raises concerns of imper-
ative  public  importance,  the  Court  properly  grants certio-
rari before judgment.  See this Court’s Rule 11.  However, 
the  Court’s  failure  to  issue  an  administrative  stay  of  the 
Fifth Circuit’s order pending its decision on this application 
will have profound and immediate consequences.  By delay-
ing any remedy, the Court enables continued and irrepara-
ble harm to women seeking abortion care and providers of 
such care in Texas—exactly as S. B. 8’s architects intended, 
see infra, at 6–7.  Whatever equities favor caution in stay-
ing  a  state  law  under  normal  circumstances  cannot  out-
weigh  the  total  and  intentional  denial  of  a  constitutional 
right to women while this Court considers the serious ques-
tions presented. 
  The  District  Court  concluded  that  S.  B.  8  “ ‘has  had  an 
immediate  and  devastating  effect  on  abortion  care  in 
Texas.’ ”  2021 WL 4593319, *36.  That is because the Act’s 
chilling effects “operate . . . as an effective deterrent to pro-
vision of pre-viability abortion services in Texas, precluding 
the vast majority of individuals from accessing this consti-
tutional right” and causing a “dismantling of the provider 
network” across the State.  Id., at *38.  Before the District 
Court, Texas identified only one abortion that had occurred 
in  the  State  beyond  S.  B.  8’s  unlawful  6-week  restriction