Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

30 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

support  the  testimony  of  Doe  6  and  the  State’s  expert. 
Three hospitals require doctors who receive admitting priv-
ileges to undergo a process of “focused professional practice
evaluation.”  See Record 2635, 2637, 2681 (Touro Hospital),
9054  (New  Orleans  East  Hospital),  10755  (East  Jefferson
Hospital).  As we have explained, this evaluation requires
hospital staff to observe a doctor with admitting privileges 
while he or she performs a certain number of procedures. 
See supra, at 22.  If the doctor admits no patients (and Doe 
6 has no patients requiring admission), there is nothing to
observe.  Another  hospital  requires  physicians  to  admit  a
minimum  number  of  patients,  either  initially  or  after  re-
ceiving admitting privileges. Record 9150–9153 (West Jef-
ferson Hospital).  And one requires both.  Id., at 9040, 9069 
(New Orleans East Hospital).  The record apparently is si-
lent  as  to  the  remaining  three  hospitals,  but  that  silence 
cannot  contradict  the  well-supported  testimony  of  Doe  6
and the State’s expert that Doe 6 would not receive admit-
ting privileges from any of them.  Good faith does not re-
quire an exercise in futility.

We  recognize  that  Doe  5  was  able  to  secure  limited  ad-
mitting privileges at Touro Hospital, to which Doe 6 did not 
apply.  But, unlike Doe 6, Doe 5 primarily performs surgical 
abortions.  App.  1330.  And  while  Doe  5  was  a  hospital-
based  physician  as  recently  as  2012,  Doe  6  has  not  held 
privileges  at  any  hospital  since  2005.    Id.,  at  1310,  1329. 
Doe 5’s success therefore does not directly contradict the ev-
idence that we have described in respect to Doe 6 or render
the District Court’s conclusion as to Doe 6 clearly errone-
ous.  And, as we have said, “[a] finding that is ‘plausible’ in 
light of the full record—even if another is equally or more
so—must govern.”  Cooper, 581 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). 
Without actually disputing any of the evidence we have 
discussed,  JUSTICE  ALITO  maintains  that  the  plaintiffs
could  have  introduced  still  more  evidence  to  support  the
District Court’s determination.  See post, at 20.  As we have