Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–463 
_________________ 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, DISTRICT 
COURT OF TEXAS, 114TH DISTRICT, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[December 10, 2021] 

  JUSTICE  THOMAS,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in 
part. 
  I join all but Part II–C of the Court’s opinion.  In my view, 
petitioners may  not  maintain suit  against  any  of the  gov-
ernmental  respondents  under  Ex  parte  Young,  209  U. S. 
123 (1908).1  I would reverse in full the District Court’s de-
nial  of  respondents’  motions  to  dismiss  and  remand  with 
instructions  to  dismiss  the  case  for  lack  of  subject-matter 
jurisdiction. 

—————— 

1 I also would hold that petitioners lack Article III standing.  As I have 
explained elsewhere, abortion providers lack standing to assert the pu-
tative constitutional rights of their potential clients.  See June Medical 
Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (dissenting opin-
ion) (slip op., at 12–14).  Third-party standing aside, petitioners also have 
not  shown  injury  or  redressability  for  many  of  the  same  reasons  they 
cannot  satisfy  Ex parte  Young.    For  injury,  petitioners  have  shown  no 
likelihood of enforcement by any respondent, let alone that enforcement 
is “certainly impending.”  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 
410  (2013)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    For  redressability,  we 
held last Term that a party may not “attack an unenforceable statutory 
provision,” because this Court may not issue “an advisory opinion with-
out the possibility of any judicial relief.”  California v. Texas, 593 U. S. 
___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 361 (1911).  Likewise here, pe-
titioners seek a declaration that S. B. 8 is unlawful even though no re-
spondent can or will enforce it.