Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON 

Syllabus 

and a single private party, Mark Lee Dickson.  The public-official de-
fendants moved to dismiss the complaint citing, among other things, 
the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  Mr. Dickson also moved to dis-
miss, claiming that the petitioners lacked standing to sue him.  The 
District  Court  denied  these  motions.    The  public-official  defendants 
filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fifth Circuit under the collateral 
order doctrine, which allows immediate appellate review of an order 
denying sovereign immunity.  The Fifth Circuit decided to entertain a 
second interlocutory appeal filed by Mr. Dickson given the overlap in 
issues  between  his  appeal  and  the  appeal  filed  by  the  public-official 
defendants.    The  Fifth  Circuit  denied  the  petitioners’  request  for  an 
injunction  barring  the  law’s  enforcement  pending  resolution  of  the 
merits of the defendants’ appeals, and instead issued an order staying 
proceedings in the District Court until that time.  The petitioners then 
filed a request for injunctive relief with the Court, seeking emergency 
resolution of their application ahead of S. B. 8’s approaching effective 
date.  In the abbreviated time available for review, the Court concluded 
that the petitioners’ filings failed to identify a basis in existing law that 
could justify disturbing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to deny injunctive 
relief.  Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 594 U. S. ___, ___.  The pe-
titioners  then  filed  another  emergency  request  asking  the  Court  to 
grant certiorari before judgment to resolve the defendants’ appeals in 
the first instance, which the Court granted.  

Held: The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in 

part, and the case is remanded. 

___F. Supp. 3d ___, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  

   JUSTICE GORSUCH announced the judgment of the Court, and deliv-
ered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II–C, concluding that a 
pre-enforcement challenge to S. B. 8 under the Federal Constitution 
may  proceed  past  the motion  to  dismiss  stage against  certain  of  the 
named defendants but not others.  Pp. 4–11, 14–17. 

(a) Because the Court granted certiorari before judgment, the Court 
effectively stands in the shoes of the Court of Appeals and reviews the 
defendants’  appeals  challenging  the  District  Court’s  order  denying 
their motions to dismiss.  As with any interlocutory appeal, the Court’s 
review is limited to the particular order under review and any other 
ruling “inextricably intertwined with” or “necessary to ensure mean-
ingful review of” it.  Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35, 
51.  In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question, whether 
S. B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution, is not before the 
Court.  P. 4.   

(b) The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-en-
forcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not 
others.  Pp. 4–11, 14–17.