## Facts

- Texas enacted S.B. 8, prohibiting abortions after detection of fetal cardiac activity (commonly around six weeks).
- S.B. 8 bars public enforcement and authorizes private civil suits by “any person” against those who perform or aid prohibited abortions, with statutory damages of at least $10,000 plus costs and fees.
- Abortion providers and advocates filed a federal pre-enforcement suit seeking to enjoin S.B. 8-related proceedings and enforcement.
- Defendants included a state trial judge, a state court clerk, the Texas Attorney General, four state health-licensing officials, and a private individual who expressed intent to sue under S.B. 8.
- The district court denied motions to dismiss; the court of appeals stayed the case; the Supreme Court granted review to determine whether, and against whom, the suit could proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to S.B. 8 can proceed when the statute is enforced through private civil actions rather than public enforcement.
2. Whether state-court judges or clerks may be enjoined in federal court under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
3. Whether the Texas Attorney General is a proper defendant absent statutory enforcement authority under S.B. 8.
4. Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue a private individual based on expressed intent to bring S.B. 8 actions.
5. Whether state health-licensing officials with disciplinary authority connected to the challenged regime are proper Ex parte Young defendants.

## Decision

- The Court held that the suit could proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage only against the four state health-licensing officials.
- The Court dismissed claims against the state judge and clerk, concluding they are not proper Ex parte Young defendants because they adjudicate or process cases rather than enforce the law as adverse parties.
- The Court dismissed claims against the Attorney General because S.B. 8 did not confer enforcement authority on him.
- The Court unanimously dismissed claims against the private individual for lack of standing, finding no injury fairly traceable to him.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Ex parte Young permits suits for prospective relief against state officials only when the official has a sufficient connection to enforcement of the challenged law.
- Federal courts ordinarily may not enjoin state-court judges or clerks under Ex parte Young because they are not enforcement actors and are typically not adverse litigants in the relevant sense.
- An official’s general authority is insufficient; the challenged statute must assign or implicate enforcement authority in a way that makes prospective relief against that official appropriate.
- Article III standing requires injury traceable to the defendant; a pre-enforcement challenge against a private party cannot rest solely on a generalized intent or expressed support for enforcement.
- State licensing officials may be proper defendants when their regulatory or disciplinary powers create a credible prospect of enforcement consequences tied to the challenged scheme.

## Conclusion

The Court did not decide S.B. 8’s substantive constitutionality; it held only that a narrow pre-enforcement federal suit could continue against certain state licensing officials, while claims against state-court officials, the Attorney General, and a private would-be S.B. 8 plaintiff could not proceed.


Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30 (2021)