Cite as: 594 U. S. ___ (2021)
Kagan, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
___________
No. 21A24
___________
WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH et al. v. AUSTIN REEVE
JACKSON, JUDGE, et. al
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[September 1, 2021]
Justice Kagan, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting.
Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72
hours’ thought, this Court greenlights the operation of Texas’s patently unconstitutional law banning most abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court’s ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them—in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey.
Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only
the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. I respectfully dissent.
Justice Kagan, with whom
Justice Breyer and
Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting.
Without
full briefing or argument, and
after less than 72 hours’ thought,
this Court greenlights
the operation of
Texas’s patently unconstitutional law
banning most abortions. The Court
thus
rewards
Texas’s scheme
to insulate its law
from judicial review
by deputizing private
parties
to carry
out unconstitutional restrictions
on the State’s behalf.
As of last night, and
because of this Court’s ruling,
Texas law prohibits abortions
for the vast majority
of
women who seek them—in
clear, and indeed undisputed,
conflict with Roe and Casey.
Today’s ruling illustrates
just how far
the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from
the usual principles of appellate
process. That ruling,
as everyone must agree,
is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted
without
any guidance from the Court of
Appeals—which is right
now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily.
And it barely bothers to explain
its conclusion—that a challenge
to an obviously unconstitutional
abortion regulation backed by a wholly
unprecedented
enforcement
scheme
is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways,
the majority’s decision is emblematic of too
much of this Court’s
shadow-docket
decisionmaking—which every day becomes more
unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible
to defend. I respectfully dissent.
I Dissent