Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

licensing-official  respondents  had  enforcement  authority, 
the chance of them using it is, at present, entirely “imagi-
nary” and “speculative.”  Younger, 401 U. S., at 42. 
  The irony of this case is that S. B. 8 has generated more 
litigation against those who oppose abortion than those who 
perform it.  Respondent Clarkston, a state-court clerk, re-
ports that only three S. B. 8 complaints have been filed in 
the State of Texas, none of which has been served.  Brief for 
Respondent Clarkston 9–10.  The private litigants brought 
those actions only after a San Antonio doctor performed a 
postheartbeat  abortion  and  openly  advertised  it  in  the 
Washington Post.  See A. Braid, Why I Violated Texas’s Ex-
treme  Abortion  Ban,  Washington  Post,  Sept.  19,  2021,  
p. A31, col. 2.  Opponents of abortion, meanwhile, have been 
sued 14 times in the Texas state courts, including by some 
of the very petitioners in this case.  See Brief for Respond-
ent Clarkston 10.4  Petitioners cast aspersions on the Texas 
state courts, but those courts are not dawdling in these pre-
enforcement  actions.    The  Texas  courts  held  summary- 
judgment  hearings  on  November  10  and  entered  partial 
judgment  for  the  abortion  providers  on  December  9.    See 
Van  Stean  v.  Texas,  No.  D–1–GN–21–004179  (Dist.  Ct. 
Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 9, 2021).  Simply put, S. B. 8’s sup-
porters  are  under  greater  threat  of  litigation  than  its  de-
tractors. 
  Despite the foregoing, the principal opinion indicates that 
the  prospect  of suit  by the  licensing  respondents is  immi-
nent.  It cites petitioners’ complaint, but the only relevant 
paragraph conclusorily asserts a “risk [of] professional dis-
cipline”  because  certain  respondents  allegedly  “retain  the 

—————— 

4 Dr. Braid also has filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against 
the three pro se plaintiffs who filed S. B. 8 actions against him.  See Com-
plaint in Braid v. Stilley, No. 21–cv–5283 (Oct. 5, 2021), ECF Doc. 1.  Two 
of the three S. B. 8 plaintiffs have made filings in the case, and both are 
proceeding pro se.  Meanwhile, 12 attorneys, all from major law firms or 
interest groups, represent Dr. Braid.