Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether petitioners could pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to Texas Senate Bill 8, which restricts abortions after detecting a fetal heartbeat. The petitioners sought to prevent enforcement by various state officials and a private party, but faced motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and standing. The Court granted certiorari before judgment and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson.
The Court held that the order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
The case involves the doctrine of sovereign immunity as the public-official defendants moved to dismiss the complaint citing this doctrine.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The public-offcial defendants moved to dismiss the complaint citing, among other things, the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
The issue of standing is addressed as Mr. Dickson moved to dismiss, claiming that the petitioners lacked standing to sue him.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Mr. Dickson also moved to dismiss, claiming that the petitioners lacked standing to sue him.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
The case involves a challenge to a law that allegedly infringes on the fundamental right to abortion, implicating substantive due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The petitioners are abortion providers who sought pre-enforcement review of S. B. 8 in federal court based on the allegation that S. B. 8 violates the Federal Constitution.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case to determine whether the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to Texas Senate Bill 8.
The petitioners sought an injunction barring the following defendants from taking any action to enforce the statute.
The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.
