Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 1

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

IN RE WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

No. 21–962.  Decided January 20, 2022 

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. 
JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  and 
JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting from denial of mandamus. 
In  Whole  Woman’s  Health  v.  Jackson,  595  U. S.  ___ 
(2021), this Court was clear.  We said: “[E]ight Justices hold 
this  case  may  proceed  past  the  motion  to  dismiss  stage
against  Mr.  Carlton,  Ms.  Thomas,  Ms.  Benz,  and  Ms. 
Young,” the state licensing-official defendants.  Id., at ___ 
(slip op., at 17).  When the mandate issued, I had thought 
that the Court of Appeals would quickly remand the case to 
the District Court so that it could reach the merits and en-
ter relief consistent with our ruling.  After all, 

“[w]hatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is
considered  as  finally  settled.  The  inferior  court  is 
bound by the decree as the law of the case; and must
carry it into execution, according to the mandate.  They
cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than
execution; or give any other or further relief; or review 
it upon any matter decided on appeal for error appar-
ent;  or  intermeddle  with  it,  further  than  to  settle  so 
much  as  has  been  remanded.”  Sibbald  v.  United 
States, 12 Pet. 488, 492 (1838). 

Instead, the Court of Appeals ignored our judgment.  It 
kept  the  case  and  certified  questions  about  the  licensing-
official defendants to the Texas Supreme Court.  See Whole 
Woman’s  Health v. Jackson,  2022  WL  142193,  ___  F. 4th 
___  (CA5  2022).    As  a  result,  an  unconstitutional  6-week 
abortion ban remains in effect in Texas—as it has for over