Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 10

4 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined
to  act  because,  in  short,  the  State’s  gambit  worked.    The 
structure  of  the  State’s  scheme,  the  Court  reasons,  raises 
“complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that 
counsel against granting the application, ante, at 1, just as
the State intended.  This is untenable.  It cannot be the case 
that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourc-
ing  the  enforcement  of  unconstitutional  laws  to  its  citi-
zenry.  Moreover, the District Court held this case justicia-
ble in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion after weeks of 
briefing and consideration.  2021 WL 3821062, *8–*26 (WD 
Tex., Aug. 25, 2021).  At a minimum, this Court should have 
stayed implementation of the Act to allow the lower courts 
to  evaluate  these  issues  in  the  normal  course.  Ante,  at  2 
(ROBERTS,  C. J.,  dissenting).  Instead,  the  Court  has  re-
warded the State’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly 
unconstitutional  statute,  enacted  in  disregard  of  the
Court’s  precedents,  through  procedural  entanglements  of 
the State’s own creation.  

The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitu-
tional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, 
but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law. 
  I dissent. 

—————— 
at this time”).