2
WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON
and a single private party, Mark Lee Dickson. The public-official defendants moved to dismiss the complaint citing, among other things, the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Mr. Dickson also moved to dismiss, claiming that the petitioners lacked standing to sue him. The District Court denied these motions. The public-official defendants filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fifth Circuit under the collateral order doctrine, which allows immediate appellate review of an order denying sovereign immunity. The Fifth Circuit decided to entertain a second interlocutory appeal filed by Mr. Dickson given the overlap in issues between his appeal and the appeal filed by the public-official defendants. The Fifth Circuit denied the petitioners’ request for an injunction barring the law’s enforcement pending resolution of the merits of the defendants’ appeals, and instead issued an order staying proceedings in the District Court until that time. The petitioners then filed a request for injunctive relief with the Court, seeking emergency resolution of their application ahead of S. B. 8’s approaching effective date. In the abbreviated time available for review, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ filings failed to identify a basis in existing law that could justify disturbing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to deny injunctive relief. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 594 U. S. ___, ___. The petitioners then filed another emergency request asking the Court to grant certiorari before judgment to resolve the defendants’ appeals in the first instance, which the Court granted.
Held: The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.
___F. Supp. 3d ___, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II–C, concluding that a pre-enforcement challenge to S. B. 8 under the Federal Constitution may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against certain of the named defendants but not others. Pp. 4–11, 14–17.
(a) Because the Court granted certiorari before judgment, the Court effectively stands in the shoes of the Court of Appeals and reviews the defendants’ appeals challenging the District Court’s order denying their motions to dismiss. As with any interlocutory appeal, the Court’s review is limited to the particular order under review and any other ruling “inextricably intertwined with” or “necessary to ensure meaningful review of” it. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35, 51. In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question, whether S. B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution, is not before the Court. P. 4.
(b) The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others. Pp. 4–11, 14–17.
