Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

3 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

found that this inability places a substantial obstacle in the 
path of women seeking an abortion.  As in Whole Woman’s 
Health,  the  substantial  obstacle  the  Act  imposes,  and  the 
absence of any health-related benefit, led the District Court 
to conclude that the law imposes an undue burden and is
therefore unconstitutional.  See U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s in-
terpretation of the standards we have said apply to regula-
tions  on  abortion.  It  thought,  however,  that  the  District 
Court was mistaken on the facts.  We disagree.  We have 
examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that 
it supports the District Court’s findings of fact.  Those find-
ings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every 
relevant  respect  and  require  the  same  result.  We  conse-
quently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional. 

I 
A 
In March 2014, five months after Texas’ admitting-privi-
leges requirement forced the closure of half of that State’s
abortion clinics, Louisiana’s Legislature began to hold hear-
ings  to  consider  a  substantially  identical  proposal.    Com-
pare Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., 
at  1–2),  with  June  Medical  Services  LLC  v.  Kliebert,  250 
F. Supp. 3d 27, 53 (MD La. 2017); Record 11220.  The pro-
posal became law in mid-June 2014.  2014 La. Acts p. 2330.
As  was  true  in  Texas,  Louisiana  law  already  required 
abortion providers either to possess local hospital admitting 
privileges or to have a patient “transfer” arrangement with 
a  physician  who  had  such  privileges.  Compare  Whole 
Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2) (citing Tex. 
Admin. Code, tit. 25, §139.56 (2009)), with former La. Ad-
min. Code, tit. 48, pt. I, §4407(A)(3) (2003), 29 La. Reg. 706–
707  (2003).    The  new  law  eliminated  that  flexibility.    Act 
620 requires any doctor who performs abortions to hold “ac-
tive  admitting  privileges  at  a  hospital  that  is  located  not