The case was fast-tracked by the Court and heard on November 1, 2021, alongside Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, which was brought by abortion providers and allies as a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act.

[5] Because of the potential conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade in that states could not regulate abortions during the first trimester (three months) of pregnancy in the interest of the right of privacy for women, the Texas Heartbeat Act does not allow the state to enforce the ban, but instead gives power to any interested party to sue anyone that performs an illegal abortion or supports that, and seek statutory damages of at least $10,000 in courts.

[5] On September 6, 2021, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would protect abortion seekers under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

[6] On September 8, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration planned to sue Texas on the basis that the Act "illegally interferes with federal interests".

[12] The relief sought from the federal district court included a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, and an injunction against state actors as well as any and all private individuals who may bring an SB 8 action.

[16] District Judge Robert Pitman, who also sat in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, then issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing for October 1, 2021, noting that the State of Texas opposed an immediate ruling and wanted to be heard.

On September 22, three individuals, two men and one women, jointly moved to intervene in the case, seeking to protect their right to file SB8 lawsuits involving abortions that were already illegal prior to SB8 coming into effect.

They opposed the proposed injunction sought by the United States on grounds of overbreadth, and averred that the court cannot enjoin "every person in the world" from filing an SB8 suit in every type of fact scenario, pointing to the severability provisions of SB8.

[citation needed] On September 28, 2021, Judge Pitman granted the motions to intervene presented by the trio of Texas residents and the one submitted by out-of-state movant Oscar Stilley, cutting him some slack regarding pleading formalities in light of his pro-se status.

Jurisdictional arguments in theory take precedence (because they would preclude temporary injunctive relief), but no hearing was set or requested on an emergency basis on the State's motion to dismiss.

[22] The injunctive relief, based on the conclusion that SB8 is unconstitutional in its entirety (i.e. facially) covers all Texas state judges, court clerks, and private citizens involved in litigation in which an SB8 claim is asserted.

[23] The Fifth Circuit had already ruled that state judges cannot be precluded from entertaining and adjudicating SB8 actions, and that these judicial officers would be bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents when sitting in such cases.

[31] On October 8, 2021, the State of Texas, through its Solicitor General, Judd Stone, filed an emergency motion for a stay of Judge Pitman's injunction in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[40] Accelerated responses were due on October 21, 2021, in this case, as well as in another emergency filing by the plaintiffs in WWH v. Jackson, in which abortion providers seek a pre-judgment writ of certiorari concerning SB8.