Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States

November 1, 2021, Argued; December 10, 2021, Decided

No. 21-463.

Opinion

Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II-C.

The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case to determine whether, under our precedents, certain abortion  [*530]  providers can pursue a  [**324]  pre-enforcement [***10]  challenge to a recently enacted Texas statute. We conclude that such an action is permissible against some of the named defendants but not others.

Earlier this year Texas passed the Texas Heartbeat Act, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess., also known as S. B. 8. ] The Act prohibits physicians from “knowingly perform[ing] or induc[ing] an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child” unless a medical emergency prevents compliance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§171.204(a), 171.205(a) (West ***. Supp. 2021). But the law generally does not allow state officials to bring criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement actions. Instead, S. B. 8 directs enforcement “through . . . private civil actions” culminating in injunctions and statutory 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, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (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 [***11]  might raise their arguments in defense, they filed their own pre-enforcement lawsuits. In all, they brought 14 such challenges in state court seeking, among other things, a declaration that S. B. 8 is inconsistent with both the Federal and Texas Constitutions. A summary judgment ruling in these now-consolidated cases arrived last night, in which the abortion providers prevailed on certain of their claims. Van Stean v. Texas, No. D-1-GN-21-004179 (Dist. Ct. Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 9, 2021).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

142 S. Ct. 522 *; 211 L. Ed. 2d 316 **; 2021 U.S. LEXIS 6144 ***; 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 43; 2021 WL 5855551

WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, 114TH DISTRICT, ET AL.

Notice: The pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Subsequent History: As Revised December 10, 2021.

Prior History:  [***1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163815, 2021 WL 3821062 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2021)

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

CORE TERMS

state-court, abortion, federal court, clerks, pre-enforcement, state court, cases, injunction, enjoin, attorney general, suits, constitutional right, sovereign immunity, state law, licensing, providers, courts, proceedings, violates, circumstances, equitable, rights, motion to dismiss, state official, private party, colleagues, principles, challenges, provisions, authorize

Healthcare Law, Medical Treatment, Abortion, Right to Privacy, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Federal & State Interrelationships, State Sovereign Immunity, State Immunity, Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Claims By & Against, Torts, Public Entity Liability, Immunities, Sovereign Immunity, The Judiciary, Case or Controversy, Advisory Opinions, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Clerks of Court, Court Personnel, Disqualification & Recusal, Grounds for Disqualification & Recusal, Extrajudicial Conduct, Legal Ethics, Judicial Conduct, Employees & Officials, Ripeness, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Religion, Free Exercise of Religion, Judicial & Legislative Restraints, Standing