Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–463 
_________________ 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, DISTRICT 
COURT OF TEXAS, 114TH DISTRICT, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[December 10, 2021] 

  JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court, ex-
cept as to Part II–C. 
  The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case 
to determine whether, under our precedents, certain abor-
tion providers can pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to a 
recently enacted Texas statute.  We conclude that such an 
action is permissible against some of the named defendants 
but not others. 

I 
  Earlier this year Texas passed the Texas Heartbeat Act, 
87th Leg., Reg. Sess., also known as S. B. 8.  The Act pro-
hibits  physicians  from  “knowingly  perform[ing]  or  in-
duc[ing] an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician 
detected  a  fetal  heartbeat  for  the  unborn  child”  unless  a 
medical  emergency  prevents  compliance.    Tex.  Health  & 
Safety  Code  Ann.  §§171.204(a),  171.205(a)  (West  Cum. 
Supp. 2021).  But the law generally does not allow state of-
ficials  to  bring  criminal  prosecutions  or  civil  enforcement 
actions.  Instead, S. B. 8 directs enforcement “through . . .