Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

sequences of approving the state action, both in this partic-
ular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel 
at  least  preliminary  judicial  consideration  before  the  pro-
gram devised by the State takes effect. 

We  are  at  this  point  asked  to  resolve  these  novel  ques-
tions—at  least  preliminarily—in  the  first  instance,  in  the
course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by 
the District Court or Court of Appeals.  We are also asked 
to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral 
argument.  These  questions  are  particularly  difficult,  in-
cluding for example whether the exception to sovereign im-
munity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), 
should extend to state court judges in circumstances such 
as these. 

I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the
respondents  to  afford  the  District  Court  and  the  Court  of
Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial 
action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the 
plaintiffs’ claims.

Although  the  Court  denies  the  applicants’  request  for 
emergency  relief  today,  the  Court’s  order  is  emphatic  in
making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the
constitutionality  of  the  law  at  issue.  But  although  the
Court does not address the constitutionality of this law, it
can of course promptly do so when that question is properly 
presented.  At such time the question could be decided after 
full  briefing  and  oral  argument,  with  consideration  of 
whether interim relief is appropriate should enforcement of 
the law be allowed below.