This article needs to be updated.(August 2023) |
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson | |
---|---|
Argued November 1, 2021 Decided December 10, 2021 | |
Full case name | Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, District Court of Texas, 114th District, et al. |
Docket no. | 21-463 |
Citations | 595 U.S. ___ (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Holding | |
The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Gorsuch (except as to Part II–C), joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Plurality | Gorsuch (Part II–C), joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concur/dissent | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Concur/dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. III sec. 2 clause 1, amend. XI |
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks.[1] The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks.[2][3] The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[4]
The case centered on whether a state can insulate its laws from pre-enforcement judicial review in this manner by authorizing private individuals to enforce the law while forbidding public enforcement by state officials.[5] On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion providers could not sue state-court judges, court clerks, or the state's Attorney General in an effort to stop the filing of private civil-enforcement lawsuits. The Court also held that the abortion providers' claims against state licensing officials could proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).