Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a720_6536.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

arguments,  the  decision  could  have  widespread  implica-
tions  with  regard  to  other  disclosures  required  by  federal
and state law. 

The procedural posture of this case also counsels against 
vacatur of the stay.  Applicants sought pre-enforcement re-
view  of  the  statute  in federal  court,  so  it  is not  clear  how 
state courts would interpret this statute if it were applied
to  applicants’  businesses;  nor  has  it  been  resolved  which 
platforms are covered by the law.  Compare Respondent’s 
Opposition to Application to Vacate Stay 1, n. 1 (Response),
with Application 11.  The statute also includes a broad sev-
erability provision, see App. 52a–54a, so vacating the stay 
requires  a  determination  that  applicants  are  likely  to  be
able  to  show  that  every  provision  of  HB20  is  unconstitu-
tional.  What  is  more,  the  attorney  general’s  enforcement
power is limited to  prospective relief.  See id., at 52a (au-
thorizing  the  attorney  general  to  seek  “injunctive  relief ” 
and,  if  granted,  “costs,”  “reasonable  attorney’s  fees,”  and 
“reasonable investigative costs”).  In this respect, this stat-
ute  is  quite  different  from  one  that  authorizes  imprison-
ment or severe monetary penalties for those who refuse to 
comply.  See, e.g., Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 127, 131 
(1908) (noting that a law’s “penalties” were “so drastic” that 
no one could test the law’s constitutionality “except at the 
risk  of  confiscation  of  its  property,  and  the  imprisonment 
for long terms in jails and penitentiaries”).  Should the at-
torney  general  bring  an  enforcement  action  for  injunctive
relief, applicants would then have an opportunity to argue 
that the statute violates the First Amendment, whether fa-
cially or as applied to them.

I reiterate that I have not formed a definitive view on the 
novel legal questions that arise from Texas’s decision to ad-
dress the “changing social and economic” conditions it per-
ceives.  New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 
(1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).  But precisely because of
that, I am not comfortable intervening at this point in the