Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A24 
_________________ 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE 
JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[September 1, 2021]

 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

The Court’s order is stunning.  Presented with an appli-
cation  to  enjoin  a  flagrantly  unconstitutional  law  engi-
neered  to  prohibit  women  from  exercising  their  constitu-
tional  rights  and  evade  judicial  scrutiny,  a  majority  of
Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.  Last 
night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment 
of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. 
Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant 
relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own 
invention.  Ante,  at  1.  Because  the  Court’s  failure  to  act 
rewards  tactics  designed  to  avoid  judicial  review  and  in-
flicts  significant  harm  on  the  applicants  and  on  women
seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.

In May 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted S. B. 8 (the
Act).  The Act, which took effect statewide at midnight on 
September 1, makes it unlawful for physicians to perform
abortions if they either detect cardiac activity in an embryo
or  fail  to  perform  a  test  to  detect  such  activity.    §3  (to  be
codified  at  Tex.  Health  &  Safety  Code  Ann.  §§171.201(1), 
171.204(a) (West 2021)).  This equates to a near-categorical
ban on abortions beginning six weeks after a woman’s last 
menstrual  period,  before  many  women  realize  they  are
pregnant, and months before fetal viability.  According to
the applicants, who are abortion providers and advocates in