Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

law may be asserted as a defense in any enforcement action.  
To the extent JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR seems to wish even more 
tools existed to combat this type of law, Congress is free to 
provide  them.    In  fact,  the  House  of  Representatives  re-
cently passed a statute that would purport to preempt state 
laws  like  S. B. 8.    See  H. R.  3755,  117th  Cong.,  1st  Sess. 
(2021).  But one thing this Court may never do is disregard 
the  traditional  limits  on  the  jurisdiction  of  federal  courts 
just to see a favored result win the day.  At the end of that 
road is a world in which “[t]he division of power” among the 
branches  of  Government  “could  exist  no  longer,  and  the 
other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.”  
4 Papers of John Marshall 95 (C. Cullen ed. 1984).6 

IV 
  The petitioners’ theories for relief face serious challenges 
but also present some opportunities.  To summarize: (1) The 
Court unanimously rejects the petitioners’ theory for relief 
against state-court judges and agrees Judge Jackson should 
be dismissed from this suit.  (2) A majority reaches the same 
conclusion  with  respect  to  the  petitioners’  parallel  theory 
for relief against state-court clerks.  (3) With respect to the 
back-up theory of relief the petitioners present against At-
torney General Paxton, a majority concludes that he must 
be dismissed.  (4) At the same time, eight Justices hold this 
case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against 
Mr.  Carlton,  Ms.  Thomas,  Ms.  Benz,  and  Ms.  Young,  de-
fendants  with  specific  disciplinary  authority  over  medical 
licensees,  including  the  petitioners.    (5)  Every  Member  of 
—————— 

6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR charges this Court with “delay” in resolving this 
case.  See post, at 11.  In fact, this case has received extraordinary solic-
itude at every turn.  This Court resolved the petitioners’ first emergency 
application in approximately two days.  The Court then agreed to decide 
in the first instance the merits of an appeal pending in the Court of Ap-
peals.  The Court ordered briefing, heard argument, and issued an opin-
ion on the merits—accompanied by three separate writings—all in fewer 
than 50 days.