Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

14 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Opinion of the Court 

to the facts of this case.  The petitioners have plausibly al-
leged  that  S. B. 8  has  already  had  a  direct  effect  on  their 
day-to-day  operations.    See  Complaint  ¶¶103,  106–109.  
And they have identified provisions of state law that appear 
to  impose  a  duty  on  the  licensing-official  defendants  to 
bring  disciplinary  actions  against  them  if  they  violate 
S. B. 8.    In  our  judgment,  this  is  enough  at  the  motion  to 
dismiss stage to suggest the petitioners will be the target of 
an enforcement action and thus allow this suit to proceed. 

D 
  While this interlocutory appeal focuses primarily on the 
Texas official defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of 
sovereign  immunity  and  justiciability,  before  we  granted 
certiorari the Fifth Circuit also agreed to take up an appeal 
by the sole private defendant, Mr. Dickson.  In the briefing 
before us, no one contests this decision.  In his appeal, Mr. 
Dickson  argues  that  the  petitioners  lack  standing  to  sue 
him because he possesses no intention to file an S. B. 8 suit 
against them.  Mr. Dickson has supplied sworn declarations 
so  attesting.    See,  e.g.,  Brief  for  Respondent  Dickson  32.  
The petitioners do not contest this testimony or ask us to 
disregard it.  Accordingly, on the record before us the peti-
tioners cannot establish “personal injury fairly traceable to 
[Mr. Dickson’s] allegedly unlawful conduct.”  California v. 
Texas, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation 
marks  omitted).    No  Member  of  the  Court  disagrees  with 
this resolution of the claims against Mr. Dickson. 

III 
  While  this  should  be  enough  to  resolve  the  petitioners’ 
appeal,  a  detour  is  required  before  we  close.    JUSTICE 
SOTOMAYOR charges this Court with “shrink[ing]” from the 
task  of  defending  the  supremacy  of  the  Federal  Constitu-
tion over state law.  Post, at 10.  That rhetoric bears no re-
lation to reality.