Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

June Medical Services v. Russo

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAbortionUndue BurdenThird-Party StandingFourteenth Amendmentabortion accessadmitting privilegesundue burden

Facts

Louisiana's Act 620 required any doctor performing abortions to have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion site, replacing an earlier regime that allowed either privileges or a transfer arrangement. After a bench trial and extended monitoring of the doctors' efforts to comply, the district court found that abortion in Louisiana was extremely safe, that admitting privileges offered no significant health benefit, and that hospitals commonly denied privileges for reasons unrelated to competence. The district court also found that several doctors could not obtain conforming privileges despite good-faith efforts and that enforcement would reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion providers to one or at most two clinics and physicians. The State had earlier told the district court there was no question that the physicians had standing to contest the law, but later argued in the Supreme Court that only patients could assert the relevant rights.

Issue

Whether Louisiana's admitting-privileges law for abortion providers imposed an unconstitutional undue burden on abortion access under the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, whether the State could, after previously conceding standing, object that abortion providers and clinics were improper parties to assert patients' rights.

Rule

Under Casey and Whole Woman's Health, a law regulating abortion is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion, and courts must independently review the legislative findings and weigh the law's asserted benefits against the burdens it imposes on abortion access. Prudential objections to third-party standing are waivable, and a State that unmistakably concedes standing in the lower courts waives that objection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio enacts a statute requiring every physician who performs abortions to hold active admitting privileges at a hospital within 25 miles of the clinic. After a bench trial in Columbus, the district court finds that abortion complications requiring hospitalization are exceedingly rare, hospitals often deny privileges for reasons unrelated to competence, and enforcement would likely cut the number of operating clinics in the state from six to two.

Under the governing rule, how should a court most likely rule on the statute's constitutionality?

Explanation. The majority opinion applies Casey and Whole Woman's Health by requiring courts to consider burdens together with benefits. A law is invalid if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. Where trial findings show no significant health benefit and major loss of provider capacity, the regulation imposes an undue burden. (Derived from June Medical Services v. Russo (n.d.).)