SCOTUS Briefs

2021 Supreme Court term

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS et al.

Dockets 21-588 · 21A85Decided
Argued
November 1, 2021
Decided
December 10, 2021
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The Court denied the application to vacate the stay presented to Justice Alito.

Background and question before the Court

The United States, represented by Solicitor General Prelogar, argued for an injunction against enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional law.

Justice Thomas asked what United States interest gives the government a basis for involvement in the suit.

Justice Thomas asked for examples where the United States has taken similar action based on Debs.

Justice Thomas asked whether the United States has done something similar when a constitutional right has been involved.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether tort laws for defamation have a chilling effect.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether the Court’s advisory opinion would lack contempt power to enforce an injunction.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether the United States has ever asserted an equity right to protect individual rights in any other state.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether there are any other suits similar to the one before the Court.

Justice Thomas asked why private individuals suing under the law would not be considered private attorneys general.

According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer posed a hypothetical about retroactively upholding a law that forces segregation.

Justice Sotomayor asked for examples under the equal protection clause.

Justice Kagan warned that allowing states to nullify constitutional rights would create a very different world.

Justice Alito asked whether any chilling of abortions could be attributed to SB 8 suits versus changes to Roe or Casey.

Justice Kavanaugh asked whether state clerks, court clerks, and judges enforce state law when they entertain private civil suits.

What each side argues

United States (Solicitor General Prelogar)

According to General Prelogar, the United States seeks the equitable remedy of enjoining implementation of an unconstitutional law.

According to General Prelogar, the United States seeks an injunction against those who choose to involve themselves in the constitutional violation by filing suit.

According to General Prelogar, if the statute attempted to apply liquidated damages to every S.B. 8 plaintiff, it would apply to all of them.

According to General Prelogar, the injunction does not reach the world at large or every possible person.

According to General Prelogar, the relief sought is different from what providers could obtain because they lack a mechanism to identify or sue S.B. 8 plaintiffs.

According to General Prelogar, every injunction operates in the manner described.

According to United States, if the state structured the hypothetical law in the same way, the concern would be that the state is effectively seeking to take the issue away from the courts.

State of Texas

According to State of Texas, texas has not nullified anything; it recognizes the Court’s holdings in Casey and provides an undue‑burden defense that binds state courts.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Thomas asked what United States interest gives the government a basis for involvement in this suit.

Justice Thomas asked for examples where the United States has taken similar action based on Debs.

Justice Thomas asked whether the United States has done something similar when a constitutional right has been involved.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether tort laws for defamation have a chilling effect.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether the advisory opinion would lack contempt power to enforce the injunction.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether the United States has ever asserted an equity right to protect individual rights in any other state.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether there are any other suits similar to the one before the Court.

Justice Thomas asked why private individuals suing under the law would not be considered private attorneys general.

According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer posed a hypothetical about retroactively upholding a segregation‑type law.

Justice Sotomayor asked for examples under the equal‑protection clause.

Justice Kagan warned that allowing states to nullify constitutional rights would create a very different world.

Justice Alito asked whether any chilling of abortions could be attributed to SB 8 suits versus changes to Roe or Casey.

Justice Kavanaugh asked whether state clerks, court clerks, and judges enforce state law when they entertain private civil suits.

What the Court decided

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

The application to vacate the stay presented to Justice Alito is denied.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 0f35e6fe51311c0c1e81-r1-e6301be403418e72.pdfopinion
    Archived copy
  • f3cb1728f815e89d7169-r1-3e46a8bdb64aefe3.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.