Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 31

2  CAMERON v. EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER, P. S. C. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

evade the consequences of litigation decisions made by their 
predecessors  of  different  political parties,  undermining  fi-
nality and upsetting the settled expectations of courts, liti-
gants, and the public alike.  I respectfully dissent. 

I 
  In  March  2018,  the  Kentucky  Legislature  enacted 
House Bill  454  (H.  B.  454),  which  prohibits  “dilation  and 
evacuation” abortions after 11 weeks of pregnancy except in 
medical emergencies.  Respondents, a clinic and two of its 
physicians, challenged the law, contending that it violates 
the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an undue burden 
on  the  right  to  previability  abortion. 
  Respondents 
named four defendants in the complaint, including the at-
torney  general  of  Kentucky  and  the  interim  secretary 
of  Kentucky’s  Cabinet  for  Health  and  Family  Services 
(secretary).1   Each was named  in  his  official capacity.   At 
the  time,  Andrew  Beshear,  a  Democrat,  served  as  Ken-
tucky’s  attorney  general.    The  secretary  served  as  part  of 
the administration of Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican. 
  Respondents sought a motion for a temporary restraining 
order and preliminary injunction.  In response, the attorney 
general disclaimed responsibility for enforcing the law.  The 
attorney general explained that “H. B. 454 does not confer 
upon the Attorney General the authority or duty to enforce 
the provisions as enacted” and “does not provide the Attor-
ney General with any regulatory responsibility or other au-
thority  to take  any  action.”   Electronic  Case  Filing  in  No. 
3:18–cv–00224 (WD Ky., May 8, 2018) (ECF), Doc. 42, p. 1.  
He concluded that, as a result, “there is no act of the Attor-
ney General or his Office for the Court to enjoin.”  Ibid.  The 
attorney general asserted no interest in defending the con-
stitutionality of H. B. 454 on behalf of the State. 

—————— 

1 The other two defendants were the executive director of the Kentucky 
Board  of  Medical  Licensure and  the  Commonwealth’s  Attorney  for  the 
30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky.