Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Opinion of the Court 

statute that says the attorney general “may institute an ac-
tion for a civil penalty of $1,000” for violations of “this sub-
title  or  a  rule  or  order  adopted  by  the  [Texas  Medical 
B]oard.”  Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §165.101 (West 2012).  But 
the qualification “this subtitle” limits the attorney general’s 
enforcement authority to the Texas Occupational Code, spe-
cifically §§151.001 through 171.024.  By contrast, S. B. 8 is 
codified in the Texas Health and Safety Code at §§171.201–
171.212.  The Act thus does not fall within “this subtitle.”  
Nor have the petitioners identified for us any “rule or order 
adopted by the” Texas Medical Board related to S. B. 8 that 
the  attorney  general  might  enforce  against  them.    To  be 
sure, some of our colleagues suggest that the Board might 
in the future promulgate such a rule and the attorney gen-
eral might then undertake an enforcement action.  Post, at 
3  (opinion  of  ROBERTS, C. J.)  (citing  22  Tex.  Admin.  Code 
§190.8(7) (West 2021)).  But this is a series of hypotheticals 
and an argument even the petitioners do not attempt to ad-
vance for themselves. 
  Even if we could overcome this problem, doing so would 
only  expose  another.    Supposing  the  attorney  general  did 
have  some  enforcement  authority  under  S. B. 8,  the  peti-
tioners have identified nothing that might allow a federal 
court to parlay that authority, or any defendant’s enforce-
ment authority, into an injunction against any and all un-
named private persons who might seek to bring their own 
S. B. 8 suits.  The equitable powers of federal courts are lim-
ited by historical practice.  Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. South-
ern, Inc., 306 U. S. 563, 568 (1939).  “A court of equity is as 
much so limited as a court of law.”  Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. 
Staff,  42  F.  2d  832  (CA2  1930)  (L.  Hand,  J.).    Consistent 
with historical practice, a federal court exercising its equi-
table authority may enjoin named defendants from taking 
specified unlawful actions.  But under traditional equitable 
principles,  no  court  may  “lawfully  enjoin  the  world  at