Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

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

11 

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

S.  B.  8’s  existing  manipulation  of  state-court  procedures 
and defenses. 
  This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure.  It ech-
oes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender 
of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the 
right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they 
disagreed.  Address of J. Calhoun, Speeches of John C. Cal-
houn 17–43 (1843).  Lest the parallel be lost on the Court, 
analogous  sentiments  were  expressed  in  this  case’s  com-
panion: “The Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Consti-
tution  are  not  the  Constitution  itself—they  are,  after  all, 
called  opinions.”    Reply  Brief  for  Intervenors  in  No.  21–
50949 (CA5), p. 4. 
  The Nation fought a Civil War over that proposition, but 
Calhoun’s  theories  were  not  extinguished.    They  experi-
enced a revival in the post-war South, and the violence that 
ensued led Congress to enact Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. 
§1983.    “Proponents  of  the  legislation  noted  that  state 
courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, ei-
ther because the state courts were powerless to stop depri-
vations  or were  in  league with  those who  were  bent  upon 
abrogation  of  federally  protected  rights.”    Mitchum,  407 
U. S., at 240.  Thus, §1983’s “very purpose,” consonant with 
the  values  that  motivated  the  Young  Court  some  decades 
later, was “to protect the people from unconstitutional ac-
tion under color of state law, ‘whether that action be execu-
tive,  legislative,  or  judicial.’ ”    Mitchum,  407  U. S.,  at  242 
(quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880)). 
  S.  B.  8  raises  another  challenge  to  federal  supremacy, 
and  by  blessing  significant  portions  of  the  law’s  effort  to 
evade review, the Court comes far short of meeting the mo-
ment.    The  Court’s  delay  in  allowing  this  case  to  proceed 
has  had  catastrophic  consequences  for  women  seeking  to 
exercise their constitutional right to an abortion in Texas.  
These consequences  have  only rewarded  the  State’s effort 
at  nullification.    Worse,  by  foreclosing  suit  against  state-