The Court also held that the abortion providers' claims against state licensing officials could proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

[16] More than a dozen lawsuits brought by abortion providers and advocates are pending in state district courts in Travis County, Texas.

[17] The cases were subsequently assigned to a retired judge and a hearing on motions for summary judgment and cross-motions to dismiss was held on November 10, 2021.

Following the Supreme Court's refusal to block Texas's law, numerous friends-of-the-court briefs were submitted to support the position of abortion clinics in Dobbs.

A three-hour hearing by video conference on the DOJ's application for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Texas Heartbeat Act by state and private actors took place on October 1, 2021.

On October 6, 2021, Judge Pitman granted the DOJ's application for a preliminary injunction stopping the state judiciary from accepting, hearing, and adjudicating SB8 claims, and requiring notices to be posted on court websites, which Texas immediately appealed.

On October 8, 2021, a panel of the Fifth Circuit granted the State's emergency motion for an administrative stay of Judge Pitman's preliminary injunction order.

On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court refused to grant the stay, but agreed to fast track both United States v. Texas and WWH v. Jackson for oral arguments on November 1, 2021.

[27] The abortion groups sought injunctive relief against all respondents, as well as against all state judges and clerks, to enjoin private enforcement actions under SB 8.

On August 30, 2021, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking to block the Act from going into effect.

In the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs' application was accorded shadow docket treatment, meaning that there was no full briefing on the merits and no oral argument.

[30][31][11] The unsigned statement denying the motion stressed that it did not preclude other legal challenges in lower federal or Texas state courts.

[1][29] In its order disposing of the application for extraordinary relief, the court explicitly avoided deciding whether the Texas law was constitutional or not, leaving that question open for further litigation.

[7] The court also expressed doubts whether the novel issues raised by the Texas Heartbeat Act could be litigated in a federal action against state officials.

On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court refused to grant the stay, but agreed to fast track WWH v. Jackson for oral arguments on November 1, 2021, alongside those of United States v. Texas.

Further, the Justices considered if the Texas bill could be used as a template for other states to design laws to allow public restriction of other rights like gun control or free speech.

[35] Gorsuch wrote "The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case to determine whether, under our precedents, certain abortion providers can pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to a recently enacted Texas statute.

[26] The Court decided 8–1 to allow the lawsuits to continue against those state officials involved in the medical licensing as they had an active role in enforcing SB 8.

[26] Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissent to this part of the decision, believing that not even the medical licensing staff should be subject to the lawsuit, stating "S. B.

On this point, Gorsuch was writing for a four-justice plurality (as Thomas did not join part II-C), but the four justices in the Roberts concurrence/dissent also agreed that those officials had enforcement authority.

Two months later, on June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade (1973).