"under Muskrat" drink!

M: private individuals isn't doing anything the clerks/judges are enjoined from doing, so no way to enjoin private individuals.

Sotomayor: state is designating ordinary citizens to enforce the law for it, so why aren't those people bound by any judgment?

M: they have to be acting in active concert with the state S: they are! M: state isn't directing activity of those individuals; it's their option. S: how is that different when prosecutor exercises discrim Batson challenge?

S: "washing your hands" doesn't insulate a state! M: but individuals aren't arms of the state

M: state can't have any involvement, per the law

WOW NO QUESTION FROM JUSTICE KAGAN FOR JONATHAN MITCHELL. WHAT HAPPENED.

Prelogar back up for rebuttal, almost done here

P: I hope you give relief to WWH, but even if you do, please give us relief, too, as we need to vindicate our sovereign interest in protecting federal constitutional rights.

P: "startling implications" of Texas's argument: if states can just give enforcement mechanism to the general public, then no constitutional right is safe. "Our constitutional liberties cannot be that fragile."