Judicial Opinion 2

I got a chance to participate in a Moot Court as a judge, here is my judicial opinion on the case. I like posting these just as a writing sample and to see how my writing and understanding grow over time. This case is more recent and holds more weight considering the recent developments in the Dobbs case and the court opinion.

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. JACKSON, JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, 114TH DISTRICT, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Justice Grace Ojofeitimi delivered the opinion of the court

I

Early this year Texas passed the Heartbeat Act 87th Leg., Reg. Sess., also known as S.B. 8. This Act bans physicians from “knowingly” performing or inducing an abortion on a pregnant woman if they can detect a fetal heartbeat unless a medical emergency prevents compliance. However, the law does not allow state officials to bring criminal or civil enforcement actions but instead delegates this power through private civil actions. Almost immediately after the law’s adoption, abortion providers sought to test its constitutionality. Before the actions provided in S.B. 8 could be executed and take effect, they filed 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 over certain of their claims. Van Stean v. Texas, No. D–1–GN–21–004179 (Dist. Ct. Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 9, 2021).

II

A

The petitioners before us, including another group of providers, filed pre-enforcement actions in a federal court. The petitioners allege that S.B. 8 violates the federal constitution and seeks an injunction barring the defendants from taking any action to enforce the statute. The defendants employed by Texas responded by pursuing an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth Circuit under the collateral order doctrine. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 147 (1993). In response, the petitioners sought emergency injunctive relief in this Court asking us to enjoin any enforcement of S.B.8. The Court took up the application and, in the abbreviated time available for review, concluded that the petitioners’ submission failed to identify a basis in existing law sufficient to justify disturbing the Court of Appeals’ decision denying injunctive relief. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 594 U. S. ___ (2021). After the ruling, the petitioners filed another emergency request asking the court to grant certiorari before judgment to resolve the defendants' interlocutory appeals without awaiting the views of the Fifth Circuit. This Court granted the petitioners’ request and set the case for expedited briefing and argument. 595 U. S. ___ (2021).

B

In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question—whether S. B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution—is not before the Court. Nor is the wisdom of S. B. 8 as a matter of public policy. We can begin with the idea of sovereign immunity involving the state court judge and clerk. The petitioners state that they eventually hope to win certification of a class that includes all Texas state-court judges and clerks as defendants. In the end, the petitioners say, they intend to seek an order enjoining all state-court clerks from docketing S. B. 8 cases and all state-court judges from hearing them. However, immediately this runs into a problem. States are immune from suit under the terms of the 11th amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 713 (1999). In Ex Parte Young, the court does recognize a narrow exception that allows private parties to seek orders preventing a state official from enforcing state laws contrary to federal laws. 209 U. S. 123, 159–160 (1908). In addition, Ex Parte Young also explained that this exception does not permit federal courts to issue injunctions against state court judges and clerks. It is not the role of a judge or clerk to execute law but to resolve disputes between parties. If a state court makes a bad ruling, then there is a natural and proper remedy is filing an appeal not seeking an injunction to prevent the court from hearing a case. If the Court sided in favor of the injunction, it would bring many different constitutional questions. If the court could stop all state judges and clerks from hearing all private cases under this state law, what would prevent the court from not doing so with other laws? Also if these are the requirements this case sets for judges and clerks to be “adverse litigants” then when would they not be considered adverse litigants?

III

The court rejects the petitioner's relief against state court judges and clerks. It also disagrees with the theory including the state attorney, General Paxton. At the same time, we do hold this case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against Mr. Carlton, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Benz, and Ms. Young, defendants with specific disciplinary authority over medical licensees, including the petitioners. The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.