Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

previously  unaddressed,  credentialing  function  that  pro-
motes  the  wellbeing  of  women  seeking  abortion.”    Id.,  at 
806.  The  majority  believed  that  the  process  of  obtaining 
privileges would help to “verify an applicant’s surgical abil-
ity,  training,  education,  experience,  practice  record,  and 
criminal history.”  Id., at 805, and n. 53.  And it accepted
the State’s argument that the law “brings the requirements
regarding outpatient abortion clinics into conformity with
the preexisting requirement that physicians at ambulatory
surgical centers (‘ASCs’) must have privileges at a hospital
within the community.”  Id., at 805. 

Moving on to Act 620’s burdens, the appeals court wrote
that  “everything  turns  on  whether  the  privileges  require-
ment  actually  would  prevent  doctors  from  practicing  in 
Louisiana.”  Id., at 807.  Although the State challenged the 
District Court’s findings only with respect to Does 2 and 3,
the Court of Appeals went further.  It disagreed with nearly
every one of the District Court’s findings, concluding that
“the district court erred in finding that only Doe 5 would be
able  to  obtain  privileges  and  that  the  application  process
creates particular hardships and obstacles for abortion pro-
viders in Louisiana.”  Id., at 810.  The court noted that “[a]t
least  three  hospitals  have  proven  willing  to  extend  privi-
leges.”  Ibid.   It  thought  that  “only  Doe  1  has  put  forth  a
good-faith effort to get admitting privileges,” while “Doe 2,
Doe 5, and Doe 6 could likely obtain privileges,” ibid., and 
“Doe 3’s personal choice to stop practicing cannot be legally 
attributed to Act 620,” id., at 811. 

Having rejected the District Court’s findings with respect 
to all but one of the physicians, the Court of Appeals con-
cluded  that  “there  is  no  evidence  that  Louisiana  facilities 
will close from Act 620.”  Id., at 810.  The appeals court al-
lowed that the Baton Rouge clinic where Doe 5 had not ob-
tained  privileges  would  close.    But  it  reasoned  that 
“[b]ecause  obtaining  privileges  is  not  overly  burdensome,