Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

3 

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

Act  of  1789,  §11,  1  Stat.  78.    As  we  have  explained  else-
where,  a  federal  court’s  jurisdiction  in  equity  extends  no 
further  than  “the  jurisdiction  in  equity  exercised  by  the 
High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adop-
tion of the Constitution and the enactment of the original 
Judiciary Act.”  Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Al-
liance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 318 (1999) (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  For this reason, a negative in-
junction must fall “within some clear ground of equity ju-
risdiction.”  Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise 
City, 213 U. S. 276, 285 (1909); see also Missouri v. Jenkins, 
515 U. S. 70, 127 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (“[C]ourts 
of equity must be governed by rules and precedents no less 
than  the  courts  of  law”).    Federal  courts  therefore  lack 
“power to create remedies previously unknown to equity ju-
risprudence.”  Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 332. 
  The  principal  opinion  “agree[s]  with  all  of  these  princi-
ples.”  Ante, at 12.  I part ways with the principal opinion 
only  in  its  conclusion  that  the  four  licensing-official  re-
spondents  are  appropriate  defendants  under  Ex parte 
Young.  For at least two reasons, they are not. 
  First, an Ex parte Young defendant must have “some con-
nection with the enforcement of the act”—i.e., “the right and 
the  power  to  enforce”  the  “act  alleged  to  be  unconstitu-
tional.”  209 U. S., at 157, 161.  The only “act alleged to be 
unconstitutional” here is S. B. 8.  And that statute explicitly 
denies enforcement authority to any governmental official.  
On this point, the Act is at least triply clear.  The statute 
begins:  “Notwithstanding  . . .  any  other  law,  the  require-
ments  of  this  subchapter  shall  be  enforced  exclusively 
through  . . .  private  civil  actions.”    Tex.  Health  &  Safety 
Code Ann. §171.207(a) (West Cum. Supp. 2021) (emphasis 
added).    The  Act  continues:  “No  enforcement  of  this  sub-
chapter . . . in response to violations of this subchapter, may 
be taken or threatened by this state . . . or an executive or 
administrative  officer  or  employee  of  this  state.”    Ibid.