Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

that neither it nor its executive employees possess the au-
thority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.  
Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court 
can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide 
a lawsuit under Texas’s law.  See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 
123, 163 (1908).  Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent 
before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no pre-
sent intention to enforce the law.  In light of such issues, we 
cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail 
in an injunction or stay application.  In reaching this con-
clusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve defini-
tively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the appli-
cants’ lawsuit.  In particular, this order is not based on any 
conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in 
no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the 
Texas law, including in Texas state courts. 
  CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER 
and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
  The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unu-
sual,  but  unprecedented.    The  legislature  has  imposed  a 
prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then 
essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the 
populace at large.  The desired consequence appears to be 
to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing 
and enforcing the regulatory regime. 
  The  State  defendants  argue  that  they  cannot  be  re-
strained from enforcing their rules because they do not en-
force them in the first place.  I would grant preliminary re-
lief  to  preserve  the  status  quo  ante—before  the  law  went 
into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state 
can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.  De-
fendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial in-
tervention,  and  they  may  be  correct.    See  California  v. 
Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8).  But the con-