Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-962_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

sible basis for the Fifth Circuit panel to delay the resump-
tion of proceedings in the District Court.  Of course, “Texas 
courts and not this one are the final arbiters of the meaning 
of  state  statutory  directions.”  Whole  Woman’s  Health  II, 
595 U. S., at ___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 13).
And, in appropriate cases and upon timely request, certifi-
cation is a valuable tool.  It was not appropriate or timely 
here.  This Court had already “h[e]ld th[e] case may proceed 
past the motion to dismiss stage” against the licensing offi-
cials based on the arguments before it.  Id., at ___ (slip op., 
at 17).  Texas, meanwhile, never asked for certification of 
the question at any point before this Court decided it, de-
spite being on notice from the moment suit was filed that
the scope of the licensing officials’ state-law duties would be 
at issue.  Neither Texas nor the panel identify a single case 
in  which  a  lower  federal  court  has  certified  a  question  in
such a posture.  Under the circumstances at hand, Texas’ 
belated request was a transparent effort to impede adjudi-
cation of the merits of the petitioners’ claims.  By blessing
this  tactic,  the  panel  ignored  this  Court’s  clear  message 
that this case should proceed—and proceed expeditiously. 

Nevertheless,  the  Court  now  denies  mandamus  relief. 
This decision is especially troubling in view of the panel’s
misreading of Whole Woman’s Health II.  As to the licensing
officials, the eight-Justice majority agreed: Suit could “pro-
ceed past the motion to dismiss stage” because, based on the 
arguments presented, the licensing officials had sufficient 
authority to enforce S. B. 8.  Ibid.; see also id., at ___ (opin-
ion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (slip op., at 2) (“agree[ing]” and citing
the state statute on which the principal opinion had relied).
Despite  this  express  consensus,  the  panel  incorrectly  in-
sisted  that  there  was  “no  majority  rationale.”  2022  WL 
142193, *3.  Straying further still, the panel described itself 
as “bound” in part by the views of the lone dissent on this