No. 21A_____
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH; ALAMO CITY SURGERY CENTER, P.L.L.C. D/B/A ALAMO
`WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES; BROOKSIDE WOMEN’S MEDICAL CENTER, P.A.
`D/B/A BROOKSIDE WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER AND AUSTIN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER;
`HOUSTON WOMEN’S CLINIC; HOUSTON WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES; PLANNED
`PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS
`SURGICAL HEALTH SERVICES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH TEXAS SURGICAL
`CENTER; SOUTHWESTERN WOMEN’S SURGERY CENTER; WHOLE WOMEN’S HEALTH
`ALLIANCE; ALLISON GILBERT, M.D.; BHAVIK KUMAR, M.D.; THE AFIYA CENTER;
`FRONTERA FUND; FUND TEXAS CHOICE; JANE’S DUE PROCESS; LILITH FUND,
`INCORPORATED; NORTH TEXAS EQUAL ACCESS FUND; REVEREND ERIKA FORBES;
`REVEREND DANIEL KANTER; MARVA SADLER,
`
`Applicants,
`
`v.
`JUDGE AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON; PENNY CLARKSTON; MARK LEE DICKSON; STEPHEN
`BRINT CARLTON; KATHERINE A. THOMAS; CECILE ERWIN YOUNG; ALLISON
`VORDENBAUMEN BENZ; KEN PAXTON,
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION AND,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO VACATE STAYS OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
`
`MARC HEARRON
`JULIE A. MURRAY
` Counsel of Record
`RICHARD MUNIZ
`Center for Reproductive Rights
`Planned Parenthood Federation of
`1634 Eye St., NW, Suite 600
`America
`Washington, DC 20006
`1110 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 300
`(202) 524-5539
`Washington, DC 20005
`mhearron@reprorights.org
`(202) 973-4800
` Attorney for Whole Woman’s Health, Whole
`julie.murray@ppfa.org
`Woman’s Health Alliance, Marva Sadler,
`richard.muniz@ppfa.org
`Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center,
`Allison Gilbert, M.D., Brookside Women’s
` Attorneys for Planned Parenthood of
`Medical Center PA d/b/a Brookside
`Greater Texas Surgical Health
`Women’s Health Center and Austin
`Services, Planned Parenthood South
`Women’s Health Center, Alamo City
`Texas Surgical Center, Planned
`Surgery Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo
`Women’s Reproductive Services, Houston
`Parenthood Center for Choice, and
`Women’s Reproductive Services, Reverend
`Dr. Bhavik Kumar
`Daniel Kanter, and Reverend Erika Forbes
`ADDITIONAL COUNSEL AND REPRESENTATION INFORMATION ON NEXT PAGE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`JULIA KAYE
`BRIGITTE AMIRI
`CHELSEA TEJADA
`American Civil Liberties Union
`Foundation
`125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
`New York, NY 10004
`(212) 549-2633
`jkaye@aclu.org
`bamiri@aclu.org
`ctejada@aclu.org
`LORIE CHAITEN
`American Civil Liberties Union
`Foundation
`1640 North Sedgwick Street
`Chicago, IL 60614
`(212) 549-2633
`rfp_lc@aclu.org
`ADRIANA PINON
`DAVID DONATTI
`ANDRE SEGURA
`ACLU Foundation of Texas, Inc.
`5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350
`Houston, TX 77007
`(713) 942-8146
`apinon@aclutx.org
`ddonatti@aclutx.org
`asegura@aclutx.org
` Attorneys for Houston Women’s Clinic
`
`
`
`
`
`MOLLY DUANE
`Center for Reproductive Rights
`199 Water St., 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10038
`(917) 637-3631
`mduane@reprorights.org
`JAMIE A. LEVITT
`J. ALEXANDER LAWRENCE
`Morrison & Foerster, LLP
`250 W. 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 468-8000
`jlevitt@mofo.com
`alawrence@mofo.com
` Attorneys for Whole Woman’s Health,
`Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, Marva
`Sadler, Southwestern Women’s Surgery
`Center, Allison Gilbert, M.D., Brookside
`Women’s Medical Center PA d/b/a
`Brookside Women’s Health Center and
`Austin Women’s Health Center, Alamo
`City Surgery Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo
`Women’s Reproductive Services,
`Houston Women’s Reproductive
`Services, Reverend Daniel Kanter, and
`Reverend Erika Forbes
`
`RUPALI SHARMA
`Lawyering Project
`113 Bonnybriar Rd.
`Portland, ME 04106
`(908) 930-6445
`rsharma@lawyeringproject.org
`STEPHANIE TOTI
`Lawyering Project
`41 Schermerhorn St., No. 1056
`Brooklyn, NY 11201
`(646) 490-1083
`stoti@lawyeringproject.org
` Attorneys for The Afiya Center,
`Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice,
`Jane’s Due Process, Lilith Fund for
`Reproductive Equity, North Texas
`Equal Access Fund
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii
`APPLICATION .............................................................................................................. 1
`DECISIONS BELOW .................................................................................................... 5
`JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 5
`STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Senate Bill 8 ............................................................................................. 5
`B.
`The District Court Proceedings ............................................................... 9
`C.
`The Fifth Circuit’s Mandamus Order .................................................... 11
`D.
`Further Proceedings ............................................................................... 12
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 14
`I.
`ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CLEARLY
`ESTABLISHED LEGAL RIGHTS AND TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM ................. 14
`A.
`This Court’s Precedent Indisputably Precludes Enforcement of
`S.B. 8 ....................................................................................................... 17
`Exigent Circumstances Warrant Immediate and Extraordinary
`Relief ....................................................................................................... 22
`Absent an Emergency Injunction, Applicants Will Face
`Irreparable Harm ................................................................................... 24
`Injunctive Relief Is Proper as to All Respondents ................................ 25
`D.
`An Injunction Is Appropriate in Aid of the Court’s Jurisdiction .......... 27
`E.
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, VACATUR OF THE LOWER COURTS’ STAYS IS
`WARRANTED SO THAT THE DISTRICT COURT CAN RULE ON A MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY RELIEF ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO ..................... 27
`A.
`The Stays Will Seriously and Irreparably Harm the Rights of
`Applicants and Pregnant Texans .......................................................... 28
`In Refusing to Lift the Stays, the Fifth Circuit Erred in Its
`Application of Accepted Standards ........................................................ 29
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`III.
`
`The Court Would Likely Grant Review of Judgment in This Case ...... 33
`C.
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, VACATUR OF THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER
`DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS IS PROPER TO PERMIT THAT COURT TO
`RULE ON APPLICANTS’ REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CLASS
`CERTIFICATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ............................................................. 36
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 37
`RULE 20.3(a) STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 40
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................................. 40
`APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. App.1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2320
`(2021) (per curiam) ....................................................................................... 28
`Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) ............... 20
`Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) ............................................... 33
`Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U.S. 1301 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in
`chambers) ...................................................................................................... 28
`Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 2021 WL
`1951792 (U.S. May 17, 2021) ....................................................................... 34
`Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ................................................................... 20
`Edwards v. Beck, 786 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) ...........................6
`Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ................................................................. 24
`Freedom from Rel. Found. v. Mack, 4 F.4th 306 (5th Cir. 2021) .................... 35
`Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) .............................................................. 35
`Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Schertz, Tex., 969 F.3d 460
`(5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) ............................................................................... 35
`Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (per
`curiam) ........................................................................................................... 29
`Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th
`Cir. 1992) ..........................................................................................................7
`GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church of Disciples of
`Jesus Christ, 687 F.3d 676 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................. 37
`Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) ................ 30
`Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 463 U.S. 1323 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., in
`chambers) ...................................................................................................... 30
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) .............................................. 19, 33
`Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................7
`Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1996) ........................................7
`June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Gee, 140 S. Ct. 35 (2019) ...................................... 35
`June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) (plurality
`opinion) ...................................................................................................... 6, 17
`Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, 571 U.S. 1171
`(2014) ....................................................................................................... 15, 18
`Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301 (1988) (Kennedy, J.,
`in chambers) ................................................................................ 15, 18, 19, 25
`Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ............................................................ 36
`McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................6
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) ............................. 20
`Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 ............................................................................... 34
`Mitchum v. Foster 407 U.S. 225 ....................................................................... 34
`MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2015) .........................6
`Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2014) ......................................... 35
`N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. N.Y.C., 139 S. Ct. 939 (2019) ..................... 36
`Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) .................................................... 27, 30, 32
`Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301 (1985) ......... 28
`Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n.,
`479 U.S. 1312 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers) ................................ 14, 23, 30
`Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989) ...................................... 25
`P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139
`(1993) ......................................................................................................... 5, 32
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott,
`134 S. Ct. 506 (2013) (Scalia, J., concurring) .............................................. 28
`Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) .............. 6, 17, 24
`Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) ......................................................... 26, 35
`Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ........................................................... 1, 16, 27
`Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (per
`curiam) ......................................................................................... 14, 15, 18, 24
`Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 1174 (2016) ........................................................... 26, 27
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401
`(2011) ............................................................................................................. 26
`Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1992) .........................................7
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ................................................. 33
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) ......................... 20, 21
`Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) ................................... 33
`Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) ...................................................................3
`United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................... 31
`United States v. Leppo, 634 F.2d 101 (3d Cir. 1980) ....................................... 31
`United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 1996) ................................... 31
`United States v. Rodriguez-Rosado, 909 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2018) .................. 31
`United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) .............. 31
`Va. Off. for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011) ....................... 35
`Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) ....... 20, 35
`W. Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301
`(1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers) .............................................................. 28
`Wheaton Coll. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014) ...................................... 15, 18
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) ................. 17, 38
`Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) .................................... 35
`Women’s Med. Pro. Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997) ...............7
`Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) .......................................................... 20, 35
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 103(c) ..................................................................................... 25
`5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 109(8), (10) ............................................................................ 25
`18 U.S.C. § 3041 ................................................................................................. 25
`18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(1) ........................................................................................ 25
`18 U.S.C. § 3172(1) ............................................................................................ 25
`28 U.S.C. § 480 ................................................................................................... 25
`28 U.S.C. § 482 ................................................................................................... 25
`28 U.S.C. § 1254 ....................................................................................................5
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 ....................................................................................... 5, 14, 27
`28 U.S.C. § 2106 ................................................................................................. 37
`42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..................................................................................... 25, 26, 35
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.022(a)–(b) ......................................................8
`Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.204(a)–(b) .......................................................5
`Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208 ..................................................................2
`Tex. Occ. Code § 164.055(a) ..................................................................................9
`Other Authorities
`Black’s Law Dictionary 1768 (10th ed. 2014) ................................................... 26
`16A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Catherine T.
`Struve, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3949.1 (5th ed.) ........................... 31
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(3), (4) ............................................................................ 25
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(4)(10) ............................................................................... 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) .................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
`AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT:
`Nearly fifty years ago, this Court held that Texas could not ban abortion prior
`
`to viability. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Yet, absent intervention from this
`
`Court, in less than two days, on Wednesday, September 1, Texas will do precisely
`
`that. This new Texas law will ban abortion starting at six weeks of pregnancy, which
`
`is indisputably prior to viability and before many people even know they are
`
`pregnant. Senate Bill 8, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021) (“S.B. 8” or the “Act”). As
`
`such, it unquestionably contravenes this Court’s precedent, including Roe, which the
`
`State of Texas concedes is binding. Indeed, as an amicus in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
`
`Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (pet. for cert. granted May 17, 2021), Texas asked
`
`this Court to overrule its precedent in order to uphold the fifteen-week abortion ban
`
`at issue in that case. See, e.g., Br. for the States of Texas, et al. as Amici Curiae in
`
`Supp. of Pet’rs, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392, 2021 WL
`
`3374343 (U.S. July 29, 2021).
`
`Despite this Court’s precedent, and the clear harm that will occur in less than
`
`two days, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an indefinite
`
`administrative stay of all district-court proceedings in Applicants’ challenge to S.B.
`
`8; vacated the preliminary-injunction hearing that had been scheduled for August 30;
`
`denied Applicants’ motion to expedite Respondents’ interlocutory appeal; and denied
`
`an injunction pending appeal. Absent relief from this Court, the court of appeals’
`
`orders will prevent the district court from ruling on Applicants’ request for emergency
`
`injunctive relief in a meaningful timeframe, allowing Texas to ban abortion beginning
`
`

`

`at six weeks of pregnancy before this Court considers the question presented in
`
`Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
`
`If permitted to take effect, S.B. 8 would immediately and catastrophically
`
`reduce abortion access in Texas, barring care for at least 85% of Texas abortion
`
`patients (those who are six weeks pregnant or greater) and likely forcing many
`
`abortion clinics ultimately to close. Patients who can scrape together resources will
`
`be forced to attempt to leave the state to obtain an abortion, and many will be delayed
`
`until later in pregnancy. The remaining Texans who need an abortion will be forced
`
`to remain pregnant against their will or to attempt to end their pregnancies without
`
`medical supervision.
`
`This obvious and immediate harm is precisely S.B. 8’s intent. In an attempt to
`
`insulate this patently unconstitutional law from federal judicial review prior to
`
`enforcement, the Texas Legislature barred government officials—such as local
`
`prosecutors and the health department—from directly enforcing S.B. 8’s terms.
`
`Instead, the Act deputizes private citizens to enforce the law, allowing “[a]ny person”
`
`who is not a government official to bring a civil lawsuit against anyone who provides
`
`an abortion in violation of the Act, “aids or abets” such an abortion, or merely intends
`
`to do so. S.B. 8 § 3 (adding Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208). These civil suits are
`
`permitted regardless of whether the person suing has any connection to the abortion,
`
`and a successful S.B. 8 claimant is entitled to at least $10,000 in “statutory damages”
`
`per abortion, plus mandated injunctions preventing the person sued from providing
`
`or assisting future abortions, and costs and attorney’s fees. Ibid.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`At bottom, the question in this case is whether—by outsourcing to private
`
`individuals the authority to enforce an unconstitutional prohibition—Texas can adopt
`
`a law that allows it to “do precisely that which the [Constitution] forbids.” Terry v.
`
`Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 469–70 (1953) (striking down a Texas law attempting to
`
`insulate white-only political primaries from federal court review). The answer to that
`
`question must be no. This Court should grant relief to block Texas’s flagrant defiance
`
`of this Court’s clearly established constitutional precedent. In so doing, it should
`
`make clear that the Fifth Circuit’s extraordinary decision to administratively stay all
`
`proceedings in the district court just days before that court was set to rule on
`
`Applicants’ fully briefed preliminary injunction motion was an abuse of discretion, as
`
`was its decision to deny an injunction pending appeal and Applicants’ request to
`
`expedite that appeal. Accordingly, Applicants ask that the Court issue an injunction
`
`preventing enforcement of S.B. 8 pending appeal and disposition of a petition for
`
`certiorari to this Court.
`
`In the alternative, Applicants urge the Court to provide other relief to ensure
`
`that the district court may rule on their pending motions for a temporary restraining
`
`order/preliminary injunction and class certification before an irreparable deprivation
`
`of constitutional rights occurs. Specifically, Applicants request that the Court
`
`(1) vacate the Fifth Circuit’s administrative stay of the district-court proceedings as
`
`to Respondent Mark Lee Dickson, who is not a government official, has never claimed
`
`sovereign immunity, and has no right to an immediate interlocutory appeal from an
`
`order denying sovereign immunity, and (2) vacate the district court’s stay of its own
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`proceedings as to the remaining Respondents, who are all government officials with
`
`specific authority to enforce compliance with S.B. 8, because the district court
`
`incorrectly concluded that the notice of appeal necessarily divested it of jurisdiction
`
`to issue an order maintaining the status quo and preventing irreparable harm. In
`
`lieu of this course, the Court could vacate the district-court order denying the motions
`
`to dismiss and remand this case to the Fifth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the
`
`appeal from that order as moot. Finally, if the Court needs additional time to consider
`
`this Application, it should enter appropriate interim relief.
`
`While the relief requested will maintain the status quo ante and protect the
`
`constitutional rights of countless Texans, Respondents will suffer no harm from an
`
`injunction pending appeal or vacatur of the stays. One of the Respondents is a private
`
`individual sued by Applicants based on his threats to enforce S.B. 8 against them. He
`
`has no colorable claim to sovereign immunity or other ground for interlocutory
`
`appeal. The remaining Respondents are a county clerk and a state judge sued in their
`
`official capacities and on behalf of putative defendant classes of similarly situated
`
`clerks and judges, who are integral to S.B. 8’s private enforcement scheme, as well as
`
`state agency officials who have authority to enforce collateral penalties against
`
`Applicants for violating S.B. 8. The district court properly rejected their assertions of
`
`sovereign immunity. In any event, given that Applicants’ motions for class
`
`certification and preliminary injunction require no further briefing from Respondents
`
`in the district court, delaying their opportunity to seek appellate review by mere days
`
`while the district court considers those motions would impose no burden on them.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`DECISIONS BELOW
`
`The Fifth Circuit’s order denying Applicants’ emergency motion for an
`
`injunction pending appeal and emergency motion to vacate the stays of the district
`
`court’s proceedings, App.1–2, is unreported. The Fifth Circuit’s order granting an
`
`administrative stay of the district court proceedings and denying Applicants’
`
`emergency motion to expedite the appeal, App.4–5, is unreported. The district court’s
`
`order granting in part and denying in part the motion to stay, App.6–7, is unreported.
`
`The district court’s order denying the motions to dismiss, App.8–58, is available at
`
`2021 WL 3821062.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The district court denied Respondents’ motions to dismiss on August 25, 2021.
`
`Respondents filed a notice of appeal the same day. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth.
`
`v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). Respondents’ appeal is pending in the
`
`Fifth Circuit. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 1254.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`Senate Bill 8
`A.
`S.B. 8 provides that “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an
`
`abortion . . . if the physician detect[s] a fetal heartbeat,” a term that the Act defines
`
`to include even embryonic cardiac activity that appears at approximately six weeks
`
`in pregnancy. S.B. 8 § 3 (adding Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.204(a)–(b));1
`
`
`1 Hereinafter, citations to S.B. 8 § 3 are to the newly added provisions of the
`Texas Health & Safety Code.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`App.10. The Act also makes it unlawful for any person to “aid[] or abet[]” an abortion
`
`prohibited by the law, including by helping to pay for a prohibited abortion, or even
`
`merely to intend to provide or assist with a prohibited abortion. S.B. 8 § 171.208(a)(2),
`
`(b)(1); App.10. Six weeks is so early in pregnancy that many patients do not yet realize
`
`they are pregnant, App.91, 157, and it is indisputably prior to viability, App.90–91, a
`
`point in pregnancy at which the State may not prohibit a patient from deciding
`
`whether to end her pregnancy, Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833,
`
`879 (1992); June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2120 (2020) (plurality
`
`opinion); id. at 2135 (Roberts, C.J., concurring). If permitted to take effect, S.B. 8
`
`would immediately and irreparably decimate abortion access in Texas, barring care
`
`for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients (those who are six weeks pregnant or
`
`greater) and likely forcing many abortion clinics to ultimately close. App.89, 105, 115–
`
`16, 124–24, 131, 148, 155, 158, 172, 178. Patients who can scrape together resources
`
`will be forced out of state to obtain abortion care, by one estimate increasing the
`
`average one-way drive to a health center by 20 times, from 12 miles to 248—almost
`
`500 miles round trip.2
`
`In this respect, S.B. 8 is like other unconstitutional laws that states have
`
`enacted in recent years to ban abortion before viability. Every single federal appellate
`
`
`2 Elizabeth Nash et al., Impact of Texas’ Abortion Ban: A 20-Fold Increase in
`Driving Distance to Get an Abortion, Guttmacher Inst. (Aug. 4, 2021), https://www.
`guttmacher.org/article/2021/08/impact-texas-abortion-ban-20-fold-increase-driving-
`distance-get-abortion.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`court to consider a law prohibiting abortion before viability, with or without
`
`exceptions, has struck it down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.3
`
`But S.B. 8 differs from those bans in that it bars executive-branch officials—
`
`such as local prosecutors or the health department—from enforcing it directly. S.B. 8
`
`§§ 171.207(a), 171.208(a). Instead, S.B. 8 may be enforced only by state courts via
`
`civil-enforcement actions that “[a]ny person” can bring against anyone alleged to have
`
`violated the ban by performing or assisting with a prohibited abortion, or by intending
`
`to do so. Id. § 171.208(a). When a “violation” of the ban occurs, S.B. 8 requires state
`
`courts to issue an injunction to prevent further prohibited abortions from being
`
`performed, aided, or abetted. Id. § 171.208(b)(1). In addition, courts are required to
`
`award the person who initiated the enforcement action a minimum (there is no
`
`statutory maximum) of $10,000 per abortion, payable by the person who violated the
`
`Act. Id. § 171.208(b)(2).
`
`At every turn, S.B. 8 attempts to replace normal civil-litigation rules and
`
`clearly established federal constitutional rules with distorted versions designed to
`
`maximize the abusive and harassing nature of the lawsuits and to make them
`
`impossible to fairly defend against. For example, S.B. 8 provides that persons sued
`
`under the Act could be forced into any of Texas’s 254 counties to defend themselves,
`
`
`3 See, e.g., MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2015);
`McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015); Edwards v. Beck, 786
`F.3d 1113, 1117 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 1217
`(9th Cir. 2013); Women’s Med. Pro. Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 201 (6th Cir.
`1997); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1114, 1117–18 (10th Cir. 1996); Sojourner
`T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1992); Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians &
`Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366, 1368–69, 1373 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1992).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`and it prohibits transfer of the cases to any other venue without the parties’ joint
`
`agreement. Id. § 171.210(b). S.B. 8 also states that a person sued under the Act may
`
`not point to the fact that the claimant already lost an S.B. 8 lawsuit against someone
`
`else on equally applicable grounds or that a court order permitted an abortion
`
`provider’s conduct at the time when it occurred, if that court order was later
`
`overruled. Id. § 171.208(e)(3)–(5). And S.B. 8 imposes a draconian fee-shifting
`
`provision providing that, if an abortion provider or other person challenges S.B. 8
`
`seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against its enforcement, that person and all
`
`of their lawyers can be held jointly and severally liable for the opposing party’s
`
`attorney’s fees and costs if any of these claims are dismissed for any reason. S.B. 8 §
`
`4 (adding Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.022(a)–(b)).
`
`As former Texas judges and legal scholars have observed, S.B. 8 “weaponizes
`
`the judicial system by exempting the newly created cause of action from the normal
`
`guardrails that protect Texans from abusive lawsuits and provide all litigants a fair
`
`and efficient process in our state courts.”4 As a result, even if abortion providers and
`
`others sued in S.B. 8 lawsuits ultimately prevailed in them—as they should in every
`
`case if only they could mount a fair defense—the threat of unlimited lawsuits against
`
`them will prevent them from continuing to provide constitutionally protected health
`
`care.
`
`
`4 Letter from Texas attorneys to Dade Phelan, Speaker of the Tex. House of
`Representatives (Apr. 28, 2021), available at https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/d5/51/
`a2eac3664529a017ade7826f3a69/attorney-letter-in-opposition-to-hb-1515-sb-8-april-
`28-2021-1.pdf.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`The District Court Proceedings
`B.
`On July 13, 2021, Applicants, who are plaintiffs in the district court, filed this
`
`case to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. They named as defendants those officials
`
`whom the Texas Legislature made responsible for compelling compliance with S.B. 8:
`
`a state judge (Judge Austin Reeve Jackson) and a court clerk (Penny Clarkston), each
`
`on behalf of a putative defendant class of judges and clerks, respectively, who will be
`
`conscripted into enforcing S.B. 8 through actions in the courts where they serve.
`
`App.17. Applicants further named as a defendant Mark Lee Dickson, a private party
`
`whom Plaintiffs reasonably expect to file suit against those who violate the Act.
`
`App.18. Additionally, Applicants sued certain State licensing officials and the
`
`Attorney General of Texas (the “State Agency Respondents”) because, although these
`
`officials cannot directly enforce the Act’s ban on providing, aiding, or abetting
`
`abortions, they are authorized and required to bring administrative and civil-
`
`enforcement actions under other laws that are triggered by violations of S.B. 8.
`
`App.17–18; S.B. 8 § 171.207(a); see also, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code § 164.055(a) (requiring
`
`the Texas Medical