June Medical Services LLC v. Russo
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 29, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 29, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Privacy
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
I A In March 2014, five months after Texas' admitting-privileges requirement forced the closure of half of that State's abortion clinics, Louisiana's Legislature began to hold hearings to consider a substantially identical proposal. Compare Whole Woman's Health , 579 U. S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2299-2300, with June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert , 250 F.Supp.3d 27, 53 (MD La. 2017) ; Record 11220. The proposal became law in mid-June 2014. 2014 La. Acts p. 2330. As was true in Texas, Louisiana law already required abortion providers either to possess local hospital admitting privileges or to have a patient "transfer" arrangement with a physician who had such privileges. Compare Whole Woman's Health , 579 U. S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2300 (citing Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, § 139.56 (2009) ), with former La. Admin. Code, tit. 48, pt. I, § 4407(A)(3) (2003), 29 La. Reg. 706-707 (2003). The new law eliminated that flexibility. Act 620 requires any doctor who performs abortions to hold "active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services." La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1061.10(A)(2)(a). The statute defines "active admitting privileges" to mean that the doctor must be "a member in good standing" of the…
Excerpt of a 102,123-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.