Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 47

12 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

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

court  officials  and  the  state  attorney  general,  the  Court 
clears  the  way  for  States  to  reprise  and  perfect  Texas’ 
scheme in the future to target the exercise of any right rec-
ognized by this Court with which they disagree. 
  This is no hypothetical.  New permutations of S. B. 8 are 
coming.  In the months since this Court failed to enjoin the 
law,  legislators  in  several  States  have  discussed  or  intro-
duced legislation that replicates its scheme to target locally 
disfavored rights.5  What are federal courts to do if, for ex-
ample, a State effectively prohibits worship by a disfavored 
religious  minority  through  crushing  “private”  litigation 
burdens amplified by skewed court procedures, but does a 
better  job  than  Texas  of  disclaiming  all  enforcement  by 
state  officials?    Perhaps  nothing  at  all,  says  this  Court.6  
Although some path to relief not recognized today may yet 
exist,  the  Court  has  now  foreclosed  the  most  straightfor-
ward route under its precedents.  I fear the Court, and the 
country, will come to regret that choice. 

* 

  * 
  In its finest moments, this Court has ensured that consti-
tutional rights “can neither be nullified openly and directly 
by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor 

  * 

—————— 

5 See Brief for Petitioners 48–49 (collecting examples targeting abor-
tion  rights  and  gun  rights).   In addition, one  day after oral  argument, 
Ohio legislators introduced a variation on S. B. 8 that would impose a 
near total ban on abortion care in that State.  See H. B. 480, 134th Gen. 
Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2021). 

6 Not one of the Court’s proffered alternatives addresses this concern.  

The Court deflects to Congress, ante, at 17, but the point of a constitu-
tional right is that its protection does not turn on the whims of a political 
majority or supermajority.  The Court also hypothesizes that state courts 
might step in to provide pre-enforcement relief, even where it has pro-
hibited federal courts from doing so.  Ante, at 15, 16.  As the State con-
cedes, however, the features of S. B. 8 that aim to frustrate pre-enforce-
ment  relief  in  federal  court  could  have  similar  effects  in  state  court, 
potentially limiting  the  scope of any  relief  and  failing  to  eliminate  the 
specter of endless litigation.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 86–88.