## Facts

- Louisiana enacted Act 620 (2014), requiring any physician who performs abortions to have “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed.
- The admitting-privileges requirement was nearly identical to a Texas admitting-privileges law the Supreme Court invalidated in *Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt* (2016).
- Several Louisiana abortion providers and clinics sued the state health official in federal district court, arguing Act 620 would substantially limit access to pre-viability abortion.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Act 620 would likely cause one or two of Louisiana’s three clinics to close and would prevent three or four of the state’s five abortion physicians from providing abortions.
- The district court also found the admitting-privileges requirement would yield no significant health-related benefit and permanently enjoined Act 620 as unconstitutional.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, disagreeing with the district court’s assessment of likely clinic closures and concluding Act 620 would not impose an undue burden.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Act 620 is constitutional and whether the providers could sue on their patients’ behalf.

## Issues

1. Does Louisiana’s Act 620 admitting-privileges requirement impose an unconstitutional undue burden on access to pre-viability abortion?
2. Do abortion providers and clinics have third-party standing to challenge Act 620 on behalf of their patients?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held Act 620 unconstitutional.
- A four-Justice plurality (Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) held the providers had third-party standing and concluded Act 620 would place substantial obstacles in the path of patients seeking abortions while offering no significant health benefit.
- Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment, providing the fifth vote to invalidate Act 620 because *Whole Woman’s Health* controlled under stare decisis given the close similarity between the Louisiana and Texas laws and their expected effects.
- The dissenters would have dismissed for lack of standing and/or upheld Act 620, disputing the standing analysis and the district court’s findings about the law’s effects.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*, a pre-viability abortion regulation is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a person seeking an abortion.
- Under *Whole Woman’s Health*, courts evaluating an undue-burden claim consider the law’s benefits and its burdens; the June Medical plurality applied that approach on the Louisiana record.
- Stare decisis generally requires the Court to follow a recent decision invalidating a materially similar law; Chief Justice Roberts treated the case as controlled by *Whole Woman’s Health*.
- Abortion providers may assert third-party standing to raise their patients’ constitutional claims when there is a close relationship and practical barriers make patient-filed suits difficult.
- Appellate courts should not lightly set aside a trial court’s factual findings about how a law will operate in practice, particularly findings based on trial testimony and credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Louisiana’s Act 620 admitting-privileges requirement because it would sharply reduce the number of abortion providers and clinics without meaningful health gains, creating substantial obstacles to abortion access; a majority agreed the law could not stand, with the deciding vote resting on following *Whole Woman’s Health* as binding precedent and allowing providers to sue on patients’ behalf.


June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 207 L. Ed. 2D 566 (2020)