After reading a few news summaries about this, I thought the majority opinion was making a really stupid distinction.
The Texas law is obviously inconsistent with Roe and Casey in effect. I thought the majority might be saying that the Texas law isn't like Roe because Roe was based on the 14th Amendment, which restricts only state actors. This new Texas law, in contrast, involves no state actors because it will be privately enforced.
That would be an extremely stupid distinction because it eviscerates all constitutional rights. Suppose Florida makes a law imposing a $10,000 fine on anyone who criticizes the governor. Obviously unconstitutional. Does it become constitutional if the "fine" is payable to some private plaintiff instead of the state? No. Same with abortion. The state action is in imposing the payment obligation, not merely in collecting it. It's unconstitutional either way.
But now that I've read the (anonymous) majority opinion (as well as the dissents), that's not what the majority is doing. Instead, it's saying that there isn't really a case or controversy yet because nobody has been ordered to pay $10,000 to anybody. Before there's a case or controversy, you can sue a government official to prevent enforcement of an obviously unconstitutional law, but there's no procedural mechanism for suing the public at large over enforcing it. (I guess the plaintiffs are suing a bunch of state judges, but judges who may preside over civil cases aren't the kind of government officials in charge of enforcement that current precedent contemplates suing --- or at least it's not clear that they are.)
The dissents argue -- convincingly, IMO -- that it's a distinction without a difference. If a law is obviously unconstitutional under current precedent, a court should be able to enjoin its enforcement ahead of time even if there isn't any particular government official to sue over it.
I think there's a good argument for modifying the law regarding prior restraint here, allowing courts to enjoin enforcement of obviously unconstitutional laws* without regard to whether they will be enforced by public officials or private citizens. But I also think it's fun that, in this instance, the pro-choice side must argue for modifying the law while the pro-life side is arguing for sticking to precedent. They'll each reverse their attitudes about that when we get to the substance of whether abortion is a protected right.
*I mean obviously unconstitutional in the sense of obviously violating current precedent that is binding on lower courts. It remains to be seen whether Roe and Casey will be ultimately upheld, but that's not really germane to the present disposition of this case.