Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

5 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

the TRO or if the parties reached an agreement that would 
allow the plaintiffs time to obtain privileges without a TRO, 
the court should hold a hearing on the preliminary injunc-
tion request as soon as possible.  Id., at 43.  The State ar-
gued that there was no reason to delay a ruling on the mer-
its of the plaintiffs’ undue-burden claims.  Id., at 43–44.  It 
asserted  that  there  was  “no  question  that  the  physicians
had standing to contest the law.”  Id., at 44.  And, in light
of the State’s “overriding interest in vindicating the consti-
tutionality  of  its  admitting-privileges  law,”  the  plaintiffs’ 
suit was “the proper vehicle” to “remov[e] any cloud upon”
Act 620’s “validity.”  Id., at 45. 

The  District  Court  declined  to  stay  the  Act’s  effective 
date.  Instead, it provisionally forbade the State to enforce
the Act’s penalties, while directing the plaintiff doctors to
continue to seek conforming privileges and to keep the court
apprised of their progress.  See TRO in No. 14–cv–00525, 
Doc.  No.  31,  pp.  2–3;  see,  e.g.,  App.  48–55,  64–82.  These 
updates continued through the date of the District Court’s 
decision.  250 F. Supp. 3d, at 77. 

C 
In June 2015, the District Court held a 6-day bench trial
on  the  plaintiffs’  request  for  a  preliminary  injunction.    It 
heard  live  testimony  from  a  dozen  witnesses,  including 
three Louisiana abortion providers, June Medical’s admin-
istrator, the Secretary (along with a senior official) of the 
State’s  Department of  Health and Hygiene, and three ex-
perts each for the plaintiffs and the State.  Id., at 33–34.  It 
also  heard  from  several  other  witnesses  via  deposition. 
Ibid.  Based on this evidentiary record, the court issued a 
decision  in  January  2016  declaring  Act  620  unconstitu-
tional  on  its  face  and  preliminarily  enjoining  its  enforce-
ment.  June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert, 158 F. Supp. 
3d 473 (MD La.).

The State immediately asked the Court of Appeals for the