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

16 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Opinion of the Court 

42  U. S. C.  §1983,  was  not  prominent  until  the  mid- 
20th  century.    See  Monroe  v.  Pape,  365  U. S.  167,  180 
(1961);  see  also  R.  Fallon,  J.  Manning,  D.  Meltzer,  &  D. 
Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the 
Federal System 994 (7th ed. 2015).  To this day, many fed-
eral constitutional 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 (2011) (First Amendment used as a defense 
to a state tort suit). 
  Finally,  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  contends  that  S. B. 8 
“chills” the exercise of federal constitutional rights.  If noth-
ing else, she says, this fact warrants allowing further relief 
in  this  case.    Post,  at  1–2,  7–8.    Here  again,  however,  it 
turns out that the Court has already and often confronted—
and rejected—this very line of thinking.  As our cases ex-
plain, the “chilling effect” associated with a potentially un-
constitutional  law  being  “ ‘on  the  books’ ”  is  insufficient  to 
“justify  federal  intervention”  in  a  pre-enforcement  suit.  
Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 42, 50–51 (1971).  Instead, 
this Court has always required proof of a more concrete in-
jury  and  compliance  with  traditional  rules  of  equitable 
practice.  See Muskrat, 219 U. S., at 361; Ex parte Young, 
209 U. S., at 159–160.  The Court has consistently applied 
these requirements whether the challenged law in question 
is said to chill the free exercise of religion, the freedom of 
speech, the right to bear arms, or any other right.  The pe-
titioners are not entitled to a special exemption. 
  Maybe so, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR replies, but what if other 
States pass legislation similar to S. B. 8?  Doesn’t that pos-
sibility justify throwing aside our traditional rules?  Post, 
at 10.  It does not.  If other States pass similar legislation, 
pre-enforcement challenges like the one the Court approves 
today may be available in federal court to test the constitu-
tionality of those laws.  Again, too, further pre-enforcement 
challenges  may  be  permissible  in  state  court  and  federal