Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

  The truth is, many paths exist to vindicate the supremacy 
of federal law in this area.  Even aside from the fact that 
eight Members of the Court agree sovereign immunity does 
not bar the petitioners from bringing this pre-enforcement 
challenge  in  federal  court,  everyone  acknowledges  that 
other pre-enforcement challenges may be possible in state 
court  as  well.5    In  fact,  14  such  state-court  cases  already 
seek  to  vindicate  both  federal  and  state  constitutional 
claims against S. B. 8—and they have met with some suc-
cess at the summary judgment stage.  See supra, at 2.  Sep-
arately, any individual sued under S. B. 8 may pursue state 
and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense.  
See n. 1, supra.  Still further viable avenues to contest the 
law’s compliance with the Federal Constitution also may be 
possible; we do not prejudge the possibility.  Given all this,  
JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR’S  suggestion  that  the  Court’s  ruling 
somehow “clears the way” for the “nullification” of federal 
law along the lines of what happened in the Jim Crow South 
not only wildly mischaracterizes the impact of today’s deci-
sion, it cheapens the gravity of past wrongs.  Post, at 11. 
  The  truth  is,  too,  that  unlike  the  petitioners  before  us, 
those  seeking  to  challenge  the  constitutionality  of  state 
laws are not always able to pick and choose the timing and 
preferred forum for their arguments.  This Court has never 
recognized an unqualified right to pre-enforcement review 
of  constitutional  claims  in  federal  court.    In  fact,  general 
federal question jurisdiction did not even exist for much of 
this  Nation’s  history.    See  Mims  v.  Arrow  Financial  Ser-
vices, LLC, 565 U. S. 368, 376 (2012).  And pre-enforcement 
review  under  the  statutory regime  the petitioners  invoke, 

—————— 

5 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s complaint thus isn’t really about whether this 
case  should  proceed.   It  is  only  about  which  particular  defendants  the 
petitioners may sue in this particular lawsuit.  And even when it comes 
to  that  question,  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR  agrees  with  the  Court  regarding 
the  proper  disposition  of  several  classes  of  defendants—state-court 
judges, licensing officials, and Mr. Dickson.