Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSovereign ImmunityArticle IIIEx parte YoungPre-enforcement Reviewsovereign immunityEleventh AmendmentEx parte Young

Facts

Texas enacted S. B. 8, which prohibits physicians from performing or inducing an abortion after detection of a fetal heartbeat, with enforcement directed through private civil actions rather than criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement by state officials. The petitioners, abortion providers, sued before any S. B. 8 enforcement action against them, alleging the statute violates the Federal Constitution. They sought to enjoin a state-court judge and clerk, the Texas attorney general, several executive officials connected to medical licensing, and one private individual from enforcing or facilitating enforcement of the law. The private defendant submitted sworn declarations that he did not intend to sue the petitioners under S. B. 8.

Issue

Whether the petitioners could maintain a federal pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to S. B. 8 against the named defendants despite sovereign immunity, Article III limits, and standing requirements. More specifically, which, if any, of the state and private defendants were proper targets of injunctive relief at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Rule

A federal pre-enforcement suit may proceed under Ex parte Young only against state officials who possess a sufficient connection to enforcement of the challenged law, consistent with traditional equitable practice and Article III. Federal courts may not ordinarily enjoin state-court judges or clerks from hearing or docketing cases, may not enjoin laws themselves or unnamed private parties at large, and a plaintiff must show a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, executive licensing officials who may or must take disciplinary enforcement action under other state laws tied to the challenged statute may be proper defendants.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute allowing only private civil suits against veterinarians who perform a newly prohibited procedure on pets; no prosecutor or agency may directly enforce the ban. Before any private suit is filed, Cascade Animal Clinic in Portland sues a Multnomah County trial judge in federal court seeking an injunction forbidding the judge from hearing any future cases under the statute.

Is the state judge a proper defendant in this pre-enforcement federal action?

Explanation. The suit should not proceed against the judge. The majority held that Ex parte Young does not normally permit federal courts to issue injunctions against state-court judges, who resolve disputes rather than enforce the law as executive officials do. It also emphasized that Article III requires an actual controversy between adverse litigants, and judges are generally not adverse to parties challenging a statute.