Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

to  pass  judgment  on  any  sovereign  immunity  defense,  let 
alone suggest any disagreement with Ex parte Young.  To 
the  contrary,  the  Court  went  out  of  its  way  to  emphasize 
that its decision should not be taken as passing on the ques-
tion whether “principles of equity, comity, and federalism” 
might bar the suit.  407 U. S., at 243.  Meanwhile, Shelley 
v.  Kraemer  did  not  even  involve  a  pre-enforcement  chal-
lenge  against  any  state-official  defendant.    334  U. S.  1 
(1948).    There,  the  petitioners  simply  sought  to  raise  the 
Constitution as a defense against other private parties seek-
ing to enforce a restrictive covenant, id., at 14, much as the 
petitioners here would be able to raise the Constitution as 
a defense in any S. B. 8 enforcement action brought by oth-
ers  against  them.    Simply  put,  nothing  in  any  of  our  col-
leagues’  cases  supports  their  novel  suggestion  that  we 
should allow a pre-enforcement action for injunctive relief 
against state-court clerks, all while simultaneously holding 
the judges they serve immune. 

B 
  Perhaps recognizing  the  problems with their  court-and-
clerk theory, the petitioners briefly advance an alternative.  
They  say  they  seek  to  enjoin  the  Texas  attorney  general 
from enforcing S. B. 8.  Such an injunction, the petitioners 
submit,  would  also  automatically  bind  any  private  party 
who might try to bring an S. B. 8 suit against them.  Reply 
Brief for Petitioners 21.  But the petitioners barely develop 
this back-up theory in their briefing, and it too suffers from 
some obvious problems. 
  Start  with  perhaps  the  most  straightforward.    While 
Ex parte Young authorizes federal courts to enjoin certain 
state officials from enforcing state laws, the petitioners do 
not direct this Court to any enforcement authority the at-
torney general possesses in connection with S. B. 8 that a 
federal court might enjoin him from exercising.  Maybe the 
closest  the  petitioners  come  is  when  they  point  to  a  state