Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

IN RE WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

point.  Ibid.3 

This Court should not accept such an egregious distortion 

of its decision.  I would grant the writ. 

III 

Contrary to the assertions of the panel below, this case is 
about abortion.  As evidence, one need only note the judge 
below’s musings about sitting on the case until this Court 
decides the pending challenge to Roe.  Indeed, the entire S. 
B.  8  scheme  employs  technical  entanglements  specifically 
to smother the federal right to choose.  Because our prece-
dents are clear that Texas cannot directly ban abortion be-
fore viability, the state legislature enacted a convoluted law 
that  instills  terror  in  those  who  assist  women  exercising
their rights between 6 and 24 weeks.  State officials knew 
that the fear and confusion caused by this legal-procedural 
labyrinth  would  restrict  citizens  from  accessing  constitu-
tionally protected medical care, providers from offering it,
and federal courts from restoring it.  The dilatory tactics to
which  this  Court  accedes  today  are  consistent  with,  and 
part of, this scheme.

I  dissented  in  Whole  Woman’s  Health  II  because  the 
Court’s dismissal of the most important portions of the pe-
titioners’ claims, beyond being unfaithful to our precedents,
left all manner of constitutional rights vulnerable to nulli-
fication.  595  U. S.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  10–13).    I  ex-
plained that the Court had “clear[ed] the way for States to
reprise and perfect Texas’ scheme in the future” in order to
target this and other rights with impunity.  Id., at ___ (slip 
—————— 

3 The panel also emphasized that this Court issued its judgment to the 
Fifth Circuit rather than the District Court after Texas first disclosed its 
intent to seek certification.  Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 2022 WL 
142193, *2, ___ F. 4th ___, ___ (CA5 2022).  As explained, however, the 
petitioners cited no authority under which this Court could remand di-
rectly to the District Court.  Even if they had, a summary order from one
Justice would not give a lower court license to dismiss a holding of this
Court.