Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

4 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

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

that defendants may raise.  It permits what it calls an “un-
due  burden”  defense,  but  redefines  that  standard  to  be  a 
shell of what the Constitution requires: Rather than consid-
ering  the  law’s  cumulative  effect  on  abortion  access,  see 
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U. S. 582, 609–
624 (2016), it instructs state courts to focus narrowly on the 
effect on the parties, §§171.209(b)(2), (d)(2).  It further pur-
ports  to  impose  retroactive  liability  for  abortion  care  pro-
vided  while  the  law  is  enjoined  if  the  injunction  is  later 
overturned on appeal, §171.208(e)(3), as well as for abortion 
care provided while Roe and Casey are in effect if this Court 
later overrules one of those cases, §171.209(e). 
  As a whole, these provisions go beyond imposing liability 
on the exercise of a constitutional right.  If enforced, they 
prevent  providers  from  seeking  effective  pre-enforcement 
relief (in both state and federal court) while simultaneously 
depriving them of effective post-enforcement adjudication, 
potentially  violating  procedural  due  process.    To  be  sure, 
state courts cannot restrict constitutional rights or defenses 
that our precedents recognize, nor impose retroactive liabil-
ity  for  constitutionally  protected  conduct.    Such  actions 
would violate a state officer’s oath to the Constitution.  See 
U. S.  Const.,  Art. VI,  cl. 3.    Unenforceable  though  S.  B.  8 
may  be,  however,  the  threat of  its punitive  measures cre-
ates a chilling effect that advances the State’s unconstitu-
tional goals. 

II 
  This  Court  has  confronted  State  attempts  to  evade  fed-
eral  constitutional  commands  before,  including  schemes 
that forced parties to expose themselves to catastrophic li-
ability  as  state-court  defendants  in  order  to  assert  their 
rights.    Until  today,  the  Court  had  proven  equal  to  those 
challenges. 
  In  1908,  this  Court  decided  Ex  parte  Young,  209  U. S. 
123.  In Young, the Court considered a Minnesota law fixing