Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

4 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

in Young, those sued under S. B. 8 will be “harass[ed] . . . 
with a multiplicity of suits or litigation generally in an en-
deavor  to  enforce  penalties  under  an  unconstitutional  en-
actment.”    209 U. S.,  at  160.   Under  these circumstances, 
where the mere “commencement of a suit,” and in fact just 
the  threat  of  it,  is  the  “actionable  injury  to  another,”  the 
principles  underlying  Young  authorize  relief  against  the 
court  officials  who  play  an  essential  role  in  that  scheme.  
Id., at 153.  Any novelty in this remedy is a direct result of 
the novelty of Texas’s scheme.2 

* 

  * 

  * 
  The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to 
nullify this Court’s rulings.  It is, however, a basic principle 
that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount 
law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and 
duty  of  the  judicial  department  to  say  what  the  law  is.”  
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).  Indeed, “[i]f 
the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the 
judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy 
the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution 
itself becomes a solemn mockery.”  United States v. Peters, 
5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809).  The nature of the federal right 
infringed  does  not  matter;  it  is  the  role  of  the  Supreme 
Court in our constitutional system that is at stake. 

—————— 

2 A recent summary judgment ruling in state court found S. B. 8 un-
constitutional in certain respects, not including the ban on abortions af-
ter roughly six weeks.  See ante, at 2, 15.  That order—which does not 
grant injunctive relief and has not yet been considered on appeal—does 
not  legitimate  the  State’s effort  to legislate away  a  federally  protected 
right.