Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 7

2 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Opinion of the Court 

private civil actions” culminating in injunctions and statu-
tory damages awards against those who perform or assist 
prohibited abortions.  §§171.207(a), 171.208(a)(2), (3).  The 
law  also  provides  a  defense.    Tracking  language  from 
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 
833 (1992), the statute permits abortion providers to defeat 
any suit against them by showing, among other things, that 
holding  them  liable  would  place  an  “undue  burden”  on 
women seeking abortions.  §§171.209(a)–(b).1 
  After  the  law’s  adoption,  various  abortion  providers 
sought to test its constitutionality.  Not wishing to wait for 
S. B. 8 actions in which they might raise their arguments 
in defense, they filed their own pre-enforcement lawsuits.  
In all, they brought 14 such challenges in state court seek-
ing, among other things, a declaration that S. B. 8 is incon-
sistent with both the Federal and Texas Constitutions.  A 
summary judgment ruling in these now-consolidated cases 
arrived  last  night,  in  which  the  abortion  providers  pre- 
vailed on certain of their claims.  Van Stean v. Texas, No. 
D–1–GN–21–004179  (Dist.  Ct.  Travis  Cty.,  Tex.,  Dec.  9, 
2021). 
  Another group of providers, including the petitioners be-
fore us, filed a pre-enforcement action in federal court.  In 
their complaint, the petitioners alleged that S. B. 8 violates 
the Federal Constitution and sought an injunction barring 
the following defendants from taking any action to enforce 
the  statute:  a  state-court  judge,  Austin  Jackson;  a  state-
court clerk, Penny Clarkston; Texas attorney general, Ken 

—————— 

1 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  suggests  that  the  defense  described  in  S. B. 8 
supplies only a “shell of what the Constitution requires” and effectively 
“nullif[ies]” its guarantees.  Post, at 2–4 (opinion concurring in judgment 
in part and dissenting in part); see also post, at 1, n. 1 (ROBERTS, C. J., 
concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).  But whatever a 
state statute may or may not say, applicable federal constitutional de-
fenses  always  stand  fully  available  when  properly  asserted.    See  U. S. 
Const., Art. VI.