- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Sovereign Immunity
- Date Filed: December 10, 2021
- Case #: 21–463
- Judge(s)/Court Below: GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II–C. ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and THOMAS, J., joined except for Part II–C. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioners, abortion providers, filed pre-enforcement lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Texas’s Heartbeat Act (S. B. 8), which prohibits abortions after the detection of the unborn child’s fetal heartbeat. Petitioners sought an injunction barring Respondents—state judges, court clerks, the state attorney general, certain directors of state licensing agencies, and a particular private party—from enforcing the statute. Respondents moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments, Petitioners filed for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the case could “proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against” Respondents with “specific disciplinary authority over” Petitioners, including the directors of state licensing agencies. The Supreme Court reasoned that Respondents with the power to take enforcement actions against Petitioners fall within Ex parte Young’s exception to state sovereign immunity. 209 U. S. 123, 159–160 (1908). The Supreme Court also held that sovereign immunity required the dismissal of state court judges, court clerks, and the Texas attorney general from the suit. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S., at 163. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the private party should be dismissed because Petitioners failed to establish “personal injury fairly traceable” to the private party. California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 9). The District Court’s order was AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and the case REMANDED.