Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 120

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

5 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

these risks, she testified, because “the physician who per-
formed  the  procedure  would  be  the  one  best  equipped  to
evaluate and treat the patient.” 

Nor did the legislature neglect to consider the law’s po-
tential  burdens.  As  witnesses  explained,  the  admitting
privileges requirement in Act 620 for abortion clinic provid-
ers  would  parallel  existing  requirements  for  many  physi-
cians who work at ambulatory surgical centers.  And there 
is no indication this parallel admitting privileges require-
ment has led to the closing of any surgical centers or other-
wise presented obstacles to quality care in Louisiana.  Fur-
ther,  legislators  learned  that  at  least  one  Louisiana
abortion  provider  already  had  qualifying  admitting  privi-
leges, suggesting other competent abortion providers would 
be able to comply with the new regulation as well. 

Since  trial,  the  State  continues  to  accrue  evidence  sup-
porting Act 620, and the State has sought to lodge that evi-
dence with this Court.  In particular, the State has learned 
of additional safety violations at Louisiana clinics, includ-
ing  evidence  of  an  abortion  provider  deviating  from  the
standard of care in a way that can result in the live births
of nonviable fetuses.  The State has also proffered new evi-
dence of potential criminal conduct by Louisiana abortion
providers, including the failure to report the forcible rape of 
a minor and performing an abortion on a minor without pa-
rental consent or judicial bypass. 

* 

After overlooking so many facts and the deference owed 
to the legislative process, today’s decision misapplies many 
of  the  rules  that  normally  constrain  the  judicial  process.
Start with the question who can sue.  To establish standing 
in federal court, a plaintiff typically must assert an injury
to  her  own  legally  protected  interests—not  the  rights  of 
someone else.  Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975). 
This  rule  ensures  that  the  judiciary  stays  focused  on  the