Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

2 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Texas, the Act immediately prohibits care for at least 85%
of  Texas  abortion  patients  and  will  force  many  abortion
clinics to close. 

The Act is clearly unconstitutional under existing prece-
dents.  See, e.g., June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 
U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment)  (slip  op.,  at  5)  (explaining  that  “the  State  may  not 
impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain
an abortion” of a “nonviable fetus” (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 
U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern 
Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992); internal quotation marks 
omitted)).  The respondents do not even try to argue other-
wise.  Nor could they: No federal appellate court has upheld
such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before via-
bility under current law.

The  Texas  Legislature  was  well  aware  of  this  binding 
precedent.  To  circumvent  it,  the  Legislature  took  the  ex-
traordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the 
State could not.  The Act authorizes any private citizen to
file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion
in violation of the Act, “aids or abets” such an abortion (in-
cluding by paying for it) regardless of whether they know
the abortion is prohibited under the Act, or even intends to
engage in such conduct.  §3 (to be codified at Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. §171.208).  Courts are required to enjoin
the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future 
and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000
in  “statutory  damages”  for  each  forbidden  abortion  per-
formed or aided by the defendant.  Ibid.  In effect, the Texas 
Legislature  has  deputized  the  State’s  citizens  as  bounty 
hunters,  offering  them  cash  prizes  for  civilly  prosecuting
their neighbors’ medical procedures.

The  Legislature  fashioned  this  scheme  because  federal 
constitutional  challenges  to  state  laws  ordinarily  are
brought against state officers who are in charge of enforcing