June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo

140 S.Ct. 2103 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Louisiana law required abortion providers either to possess local hospital admitting privileges or to have a patient “transfer” arrangement with a physician who had such privileges. 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.” The doctor must be “a member in good standing” of the hospital’s “medical staff . . . with the ability to admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical services to such patient.” Ps, three abortion clinics, and two abortion providers filed a lawsuit alleging that Act 620 was unconstitutional because (among other things) it imposed an undue burden on the right of their patients to obtain an abortion. The District Court forbade D to enforce the Act’s penalties while directing Ps to continue to seek privileges and to keep the court apprised of their progress. The court declared Act 620 unconstitutional on its face and preliminarily enjoining its enforcement. The Supreme Court issued its decision in Whole Woman’s Health, reversing the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in that case. The Louisiana statute, Act 620 is almost word-for-word identical to Texas’ admitting-privileges law held unconstitutional in Whole Woman’s Health. The court specifically found that there was “‘no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure.’ There was also “no credible evidence in the record that Act 620 would further the State’s interest in women’s health beyond that which is already insured under existing Louisiana law.” The District Court to conclude that the law imposes an undue burden and is therefore unconstitutional. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded that Act 620’s impact was “dramatically less” than that of the Texas law invalidated in Whole Woman’s Health. It concluded that the admitting-privileges requirement “performs a real, and previously unaddressed, credentialing function that promotes the wellbeing of women seeking abortion.” The Court of Appeals concluded that “there is no evidence that Louisiana facilities will close from Act 620.” Ps appealed.