The U.S. Supreme Court today in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2021), held that abortion providers may sue one set of defendants in their challenge to Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. Eight of the Justices (all but Justice Thomas) concluded that Texas still involved one set of state officials in enforcement of the heartbeat abortion ban. Plaintiffs may challenge the statute by suing the state officials who have disciplinary authority over medical licensees who violate the ban. Thus Texas failed to completely insulate the law from pre-enforcement challenge.
Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion arguing in part:
The principal opinion then proposes that the Texas Medical Board may enforce S. B. 8 under §164.055 of the Texas Occupations Code. Thus, on that view, S. B. 8 permits the Medical Board to discipline physicians for violating the statute despite the Act’s command that “the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through . . . private civil actions,” “[n]otwithstanding . . . any other law.” .... By its terms, S. B. 8’s saving clause preserves enforcement only of laws that “regulate or prohibit abortion.”
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan concluded that the Attorney General and court clerks should also be able to be sued in a challenge to the law. His opinion says in part:
The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison.... Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.”... The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.
Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, saying in part:
My disagreement with the Court runs far deeper than a quibble over how many defendants these petitioners may sue. The dispute is over whether States may nullify federal constitutional rights by employing schemes like the one at hand. The Court indicates that they can, so long as they write their laws to more thoroughly disclaim all enforcement by state officials, including licensing officials. This choice to shrink from Texas’ challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions....
This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they disagreed....
What are federal courts to do if, for example, a State effectively prohibits worship by a disfavored religious minority through crushing “private” litigation burdens amplified by skewed court procedures, but does a better job than Texas of disclaiming all enforcement by state officials? Perhaps nothing at all, says this Court....
Houston Public Media reports on the decision.
Then in the other challenge to the Texas law, United States v. Texas, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2021), the Court, over the dissent of Justice Sotomayor, dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
