Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A24 
_________________ 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE 
JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[September 1, 2021] 

The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative,
to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented
to  JUSTICE ALITO  and  by  him  referred  to  the  Court  is  de-
nied.  To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunc-
tion,  an  applicant  must  carry  the  burden  of  making  a
“strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed on the merits,”
that it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” that the 
balance  of  the  equities  favors  it,  and  that  a  stay  is  con-
sistent with the public interest.  Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 
418,  434  (2009);  Roman  Catholic  Diocese  of  Brooklyn  v. 
Cuomo,  141  S.  Ct.  63, 66  (2020)  (citing  Winter  v.  Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)).  The 
applicants now before us have raised serious questions re-
garding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue.  But 
their application also presents complex and novel anteced-
ent  procedural  questions  on  which  they  have  not  carried 
their burden.  For example, federal courts enjoy the power 
to  enjoin  individuals  tasked  with  enforcing  laws,  not  the 
laws  themselves.  California  v.  Texas,  593  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2021) (slip op., at 8).  And it is unclear whether the named 
defendants  in  this  lawsuit  can  or  will  seek  to  enforce  the 
Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might 
permit our intervention.  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 
U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (“threatened injury must be certainly 
impending” (citation omitted)).  The State has represented