Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

6 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

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

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, 594 
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 
14) (“illustrative examples can help orient affected parties 
and courts to Congress’s thinking”).  It is unsurprising that 
Texas repeated itself to make its point “doubly sure.”  Bar-
ton v. Barr, 590 U. S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 16).  And, in 
all events, “[r]edundancy in one portion of a statute is not a 
license to rewrite or eviscerate another portion of the stat-
ute contrary to its text.”  Ibid.3   
  Second, even when there is an appropriate defendant to 
sue, a plaintiff may bring an action under Ex parte Young 
only when the defendant “threaten[s] and [is] about to com-
mence proceedings.”  209 U. S., at 156.  Our later cases ex-
plain  that  “the  prospect  of  state  suit  must  be  imminent.”  
Morales  v.  Trans  World  Airlines,  Inc.,  504  U. S.  374,  382 
(1992).  Here, none of the licensing officials has threatened 
enforcement proceedings against petitioners because none 
has authority to bring them.  Petitioners do not and cannot 
dispute this point. 
  Rather, petitioners complain of the “chill” S. B. 8 has on 
the  purported  right  to  abortion.    But  as  our  cases  make 
clear,  it  is  not  enough that  petitioners  “feel  inhibited”  be-
cause S. B. 8 is “on the books.”  Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 
37, 42 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Nor is a 
“vague  allegation”  of  potential  enforcement  permissible.  
Boise Artesian, 213 U. S., at 285.  To sustain suit against 
the licensing officials, whether under Article III or Ex parte 
Young, petitioners must show at least a credible and spe-
cific threat of enforcement to rescind their medical licenses 
or assess some other penalty under S. B. 8.  See Susan B. 
Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 159 (2014).  Peti-
tioners  offer  nothing  to  make  this  showing.    Even  if  the  
—————— 

3 Because  the  principal  opinion’s  errors  rest on misinterpretations of 
Texas law, the Texas courts of course remain free to correct its mistakes.  
See,  e.g.,  Estate  of  Thornton  v.  Caldor,  Inc.,  472  U. S.  703,  709,  n. 8 
(1985).