Amy Hagstrom Miller, the chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, said in an interview that she had always expected the case to be appealed, but that the breadth of Judge Yeakel’s decision made her more optimistic about her side’s prospects.

The Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that the government cannot impose an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion before a fetus is viable, even if the statute in question promotes a “valid state interest.” States are allowed to pass laws that “express profound respect for the life of the unborn,” but not if those laws create substantial obstacles for women. The justices affirmed that standard last year in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which involved another Texas law and many of the same plaintiffs.

“Based on existing precedent alone,” Judge Yeakel wrote, “the Act must fail. Once the Supreme Court has defined the boundaries of a constitutional right, a district court may not redefine those boundaries. Further, the role of the District Court is to preserve a right, not to search for a way to evade or lessen the right.”

Proponents of S.B. 8 have emphasized the graphic nature of D&E abortions; in a statement on Wednesday, Texas Right to Life described a fetus being “torn limb from limb while his or her heart is still beating.”

Judge Yeakel acknowledged that “the evidence before the court is graphic and distasteful,” but concluded: “This evidence is germane only to the state’s interest in the dignity of fetal life and is weighed on the state’s side of the scale. It does not remove weight from the woman’s side. And it does not add weight to tip the balance in the state’s favor.”

He also rejected as unfeasible Texas’ three suggested methods for stopping a fetus’s heart: injecting a chemical called digoxin into the woman’s abdomen; injecting potassium chloride directly into the heart; or inserting instruments through the cervix to cut the umbilical cord.