Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Syllabus 

attorney  general’s  enforcement  authority  to  the  Texas  Occupational 
Code, and S. B. 8 is not codified within “this subtitle.”  Nor have the 
petitioners identified for us any “rule or order adopted by the” Texas 
Medical Board that the attorney general might enforce against them.  
And  even  if  the  attorney  general  did  have  some  enforcement  power 
under S. B. 8 that could be enjoined, the petitioners have identified no 
authority that might allow a federal court to parlay any defendant’s 
enforcement authority into an injunction against any and all unnamed 
private parties who might seek to bring their own S. B. 8 suits.  Con-
sistent with historical practice, a court exercising equitable authority 
may enjoin named defendants from taking unlawful actions.  But un-
der traditional equitable principles, no court may “enjoin the world at 
large,” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F. 2d 832 (CA2), or purport to 
enjoin  challenged  “laws  themselves.”    Whole  Woman’s  Health,  594 
U. S., at ___ (citing California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (slip op, at 
8)).  Pp. 9–11. 

(3) The  petitioners  name  other  defendants  (Stephen  Carlton, 
Katherine Thomas, Allison Benz, and Cecile Young), each of whom is 
an executive licensing official who may or must take enforcement ac-
tions  against  the  petitioners  if  the  petitioners  violate  the  terms  of 
Texas’s Health and Safety Code, including S. B. 8.  Eight Members of 
the  Court  hold  that  sovereign  immunity  does  not  bar  a  pre-enforce-
ment challenge to S. B. 8 against these defendants.  Pp. 11–14. 

(4) The sole private defendant, Mr. Dickson, should be dismissed.  

Given that the petitioners do not contest Mr. Dickson’s sworn declara-
tions  stating  that  he  has  no  intention  to  file  an  S.  B.  8  suit  against 
them, the petitioners cannot establish “personal injury fairly traceable 
to  [Mr.  Dickson’s]  allegedly  unlawful  conduct.”    See  California,  593 
U. S., at ___ (slip op, at 9).  P. 14. 

(c) The Court holds that the petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement 
challenge  in  federal  court  as  one  means  to  test  S.  B.  8’s  compliance 
with the Federal Constitution.  Other pre-enforcement challenges are 
possible too; one such case is ongoing in state court in which the plain-
tiffs have raised both federal and state constitutional claims against 
S. B. 8.  Any individual sued under S. B. 8 may raise state and federal 
constitutional  arguments  in  his  or  her  defense  without  limitation.  
Whatever a state statute may or may not say about a defense, applica-
ble  federal  constitutional  defenses  always  stand  available  when 
properly asserted.  See U. S. Const., Art. VI.  Many federal constitu-
tional rights are as a practical matter asserted typically as defenses to 
state-law  claims,  not  in  federal  pre-enforcement  cases  like  this  one.  
See, e.g., Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443 (First Amendment used as a 
defense to a state tort suit).  Other viable avenues to contest the law’s 
compliance with the Federal Constitution also may be possible and the