Roberts Is Key Vote, as US Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Clinic Law
"The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in his concurrence in the judgment.
June 29, 2020 at 10:24 AM
4 minute read
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Louisiana's abortion clinic restrictions, which threatened to leave only one abortion clinic operating in the state, unconstitutionally burden a woman's right to an abortion.
Justice Stephen Breyer led the 5-4 majority, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was the key vote; he concurred in the outcome, writing that the facts in the Louisiana case mirrored the facts in a Texas case that the justices found in 2016 also burdened a woman's right to abortion.
"The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law," wrote Roberts in his concurrence in the judgment. "The Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous."
Roberts also stated: "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."
Separate dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote: "Today a majority of the court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction. "
The decision by the Supreme Court was a victory for abortion rights advocates who have vigorously opposed in other states the nearly identical requirement imposed by Louisiana: that all abortion physicians have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility.
" We're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow. With this win, the clinics in Louisiana can stay open to serve the one million women of reproductive age in the state," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "But the court's decision could embolden states to pass even more restrictive laws when clarity is needed if abortion rights are to be protected."
If the Louisiana law were enforced, a federal district court found that only one physician at one of the state's three clinics would remain to provide services for an estimated 10,000 women seeking abortions each year.
The ruling is likely to energize anti-abortion groups to engage in another round of lobbying for the admitting privileges requirement in additional states.
The Louisiana case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was the first abortion-related case to come before the court's newest justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The case was closely watched for how the two justices would rule and what they might say. Equally important were the potential implications of the justices's treatment of their 2016 precedent in a nearly identical case—Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. In that case, Roberts voted in dissent.
In Whole Woman's Health, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's four liberal justices in a decision by Justice Stephen Breyer striking down Texas's 30-mile hospital admitting privileges requirement because, they said, it served no medical benefit at all and burdened women's right to choose abortion.
Some of Louisiana's supporting amici had urged the justices to narrow or outright overrule the 2016 decision. And one of them—Americans United for Life—called on the court in its brief to re-examine the landmark abortion rights decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey.
In a cross-petition filed by Louisiana, the state challenged the high court's holdings for four decades that abortion providers have third-party standing to challenge abortion regulations on behalf of their patients.
Read more:
Thwarting Trump, Roberts Guards the Supreme Court's Reputation, and His
Chief Justice Roberts Leads Ruling Against Trump's Effort to End DACA
Exasperated Roberts Confronts Lingering Birth Control Coverage Questions
Why Roberts Sided With Liberals Blocking Restrictive Louisiana Abortion Law
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
2 minute read4th Circuit Revives Racial Harassment Lawsuit Against North Carolina School District
3 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 2What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 3Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 4Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
- 5Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250