Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

3 

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

2021).    Those  vulnerable  to  suit  might  include  a  medical 
provider,  a  receptionist,  a  friend  who  books  an  appoint-
ment, or a ride-share driver who takes a woman to a clinic.  
  Importantly, S. B. 8 also modifies state-court procedures 
to make litigation uniquely punitive for those sued.  It al-
lows  defendants  to  be  haled  into  court  in  any  county  in 
which a plaintiff lives, even if that county has no relation-
ship to the defendants or the abortion procedure at issue.  
§171.210(a)(4).  It gives the plaintiff a veto over any venue 
transfer, regardless of the inconvenience to the defendants.  
§171.210(b).  It prohibits defendants from invoking nonmu-
tual issue or claim preclusion, meaning that if they prevail, 
they remain vulnerable to suit by any other plaintiff any-
where in the State for the same conduct.  §171.208(e)(5).  It 
also bars defendants from relying on any nonbinding court 
decision,  such  as  persuasive  precedent  from  other  trial 
courts.  §171.208(e)(4).  Although it guarantees attorney’s 
fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, §171.208(b)(3), it cat-
egorically  denies 
to  prevailing  defendants, 
§171.208(i),  so  they  must  finance  their  own  defenses  no 
matter how frivolous the suits.  These provisions are con-
siderable departures from the norm in Texas courts and in 
most courts across the Nation.2 
  S. B. 8 further purports to limit the substantive defenses 

them 

—————— 

2 S. B. 8’s procedural meddling is not limited to suits filed under the 
law.  To deter efforts to seek pre-enforcement review, the law also estab-
lishes a special fee-shifting provision for affirmative challenges to Texas 
abortion laws, including S. B. 8 itself.  Under that provision, any person 
or entity, including an attorney or a law firm, who seeks declaratory or 
injunctive relief against the enforcement of any state restriction on abor-
tion is jointly and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of 
a  prevailing  party.    Tex.  Civ.  Prac.  &  Rem.  Code  Ann.  §30.022  (West 
Cum. Supp. 2021).  The provision specifies that it is “not a defense” to 
liability  for  attorney’s  fees  if  “the  court  in  the  underlying  action  held 
that” any part of the fee-shifting provision “is invalid, unconstitutional, 
or preempted by federal law, notwithstanding the doctrines of issue or 
claim preclusion.”  §30.022(d)(3).