Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 96.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

3 
Not only did the District Court apply the wrong test, but
the  evidence  in  the  record  fails  to  show  that  the  doctors 
made  anything  more  than  perfunctory  efforts  to  obtain 
privileges.

There are three abortion clinics in Louisiana: June Med-
ical, d/b/a Hope Clinic, in Shreveport; Delta Clinic in Baton 
Rouge; and Women’s Clinic in New Orleans.  Five doctors 
perform  abortions  at  those  three  locations:  Doe  1,  Doe  2,
and  Doe  3  at  June  Medical;  Doe  5  at  Delta  Clinic  and 
Women’s Clinic; and Doe 6 at Women’s Clinic.  For purposes
of the analysis that follows, I assume that Doe 1 could not 
get privileges.9  If we also assume that none of these doctors 
would be replaced if they ceased to perform abortions, the
impact of the challenged law on abortion access in the State
depends on the ability of four doctors to secure such privi-
leges: Doe 2 (June Medical, Shreveport), Doe 3 (June Medi-
cal,  Shreveport),  Doe  5  (Delta  Clinic,  Baton  Rouge,  and
Women’s Clinic, New Orleans), and Doe 6 (Women’s Clinic, 
New Orleans).  As I will show, under the correct legal stand-
ard, June Medical failed to prove that Act 620 would drive 
these four doctors out of the abortion practice. 

Doe 2.  The District Court concluded that Doe 2 made a 

—————— 

9 The Fifth Circuit concluded that it would be “nearly impossible” for 
Doe 1 to get privileges, June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Gee, 905 F. 3d 
787, 812 (2018), and for this reason, the plurality does not linger on Doe
1.  Ante, at 23.  Under the correct legal standard, however, it is not at all 
clear  that  Doe  1  made  the  effort  required,  at  least  with  respect  to 
Christus Health in Shreveport.  He applied there for courtesy privileges, 
received letters instructing him to pick up a badge, and when he called 
to clarify the meaning of letters sent to him, an unnamed doctor suppos-
edly told him that he should apply for “some kind of a nonstaff caregiver 
type”  position,  App.  725,  and  he  then  ceased  all  efforts to  get courtesy 
staff privileges at Christus, id., at 728.  A person with a strong personal
incentive to obtain courtesy privileges would not necessarily have taken
this somewhat cryptic advice as a definite rejection of his application.