Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Paxton; executive director of the Texas Medical Board, Ste-
phen  Carlton;  executive  director  of  the  Texas  Board  of 
Nursing, Katherine Thomas; executive director of the Texas 
Board of Pharmacy, Allison Benz; executive commissioner 
of  the  Texas  Health  and  Human  Services  Commission, 
Cecile Young;  and  a  single  private  party,  Mark  Lee  Dick-
son. 
  Shortly after the petitioners filed their federal complaint, 
the individual defendants employed by Texas moved to dis-
miss,  citing  among  other  things  the  doctrine  of  sovereign 
immunity.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a.  The sole private de-
fendant, Mr. Dickson, also moved to dismiss, claiming that 
the petitioners lacked standing to sue him.  13 F. 4th 434, 
445 (CA5 2021) (per curiam).  The District Court denied the 
motions.  Ibid. 
  The defendants employed by Texas responded by pursu-
ing an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth Circuit under the 
collateral  order  doctrine.    See  Puerto  Rico  Aqueduct  and 
Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 147 
(1993) (collateral order doctrine allows immediate appellate 
review of order denying claim of sovereign immunity).  Mr. 
Dickson  also  filed  an  interlocutory  appeal.    The  Fifth  
Circuit agreed to take up his appeal because the issues it 
raised overlapped with those already before the court in the 
Texas official defendants’ appeal.  13 F. 4th, at 438–439. 
  Separately,  the  petitioners  also  sought  relief  from  the 
Fifth Circuit.  Citing S. B. 8’s impending effective date, they 
asked the court to issue an injunction suspending the law’s 
enforcement until the court could hear and decide the mer-
its of the defendants’ appeals.  Ibid.  The Fifth Circuit de-
clined  the  petitioners’  request.    Instead,  that  court  issued 
an order staying proceedings in the District Court until it 
could resolve the defendants’ appeals.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 
79a; 13 F. 4th, at 438–439, 443. 
  In response to these developments, the petitioners sought 
emergency  injunctive  relief  in  this  Court.    In  their  filing,