Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 107

26 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

tions, on the other hand, have an interest in the preserva-
tion  of  regulations  that  protect  their  health.    The  conflict 
inherent in such a situation is glaring. 

Some may not see the conflict in this case because they 
are  convinced  that  the  admitting  privileges  requirement 
does nothing to promote safety and is really just a ploy.  But 
an abortion provider’s ability to assert the rights of women 
when it challenges ostensible safety regulations should not 
turn on the merits of its claim. 

The problem with the rule that the majority embraces is
highlighted if we consider challenges to other safety regu-
lations.  Suppose, for example, that a clinic in a State that
allows certified non-physicians to perform abortions claims 
that the State’s certification requirements are too onerous 
and  that  they  imperil  the  clinic’s  continued  operation.
Should the clinic be able to assert the rights of women in 
attacking  this  regulation,  which  the  state  lawmakers
thought was important to protect women’s health? 

When an abortion regulation is enacted for the asserted 
purpose of protecting the health of women, an abortion pro-
vider seeking to strike down that law should not be able to
rely on the constitutional rights of women.  Like any other
party  unhappy  with  burdensome  regulation,  the  provider
should be limited to its own rights. 

C 
This rule is supported by precedent and follows from gen-
eral principles regarding conflicts of interest.  We have al-
ready  held  that  third-party  standing  is  not  appropriate
where there is a potential conflict of interest between the 
plaintiff and the third party.  In Elk Grove Unified School 
Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 9, 15, and n. 7 (2004), a poten-
tial conflict of interest between the plaintiff and his daugh-
ter  arose  on  appeal.  The  father  had  asserted  that  his 
daughter had a constitutional right not to hear others recite 
the words “ ‘under God’ ” when the pledge of allegiance was