Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

means that the parties have offered, in essence, competing 
predictions  about  whether  those  three  doctors  can  obtain 
admitting  privileges.    The  District  Court  concluded  that 
the  three  doctors  likely  could  not  obtain  admitting  privi-
leges.  The District Court therefore enjoined the law.  The 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Fifth  Circuit  concluded  that  the 
three doctors likely could obtain admitting privileges.  The 
Fifth Circuit therefore lifted the injunction. 

Before us, the case largely turns on the intensely factual
question  whether  the  three  doctors—Doe  2,  Doe  5,  and 
Doe 6—can obtain admitting privileges.  If  we denied the 
stay, that question could be readily and quickly answered 
without  disturbing  the  status  quo or causing harm  to the 
parties  or  the  affected  women,  and  without  this  Court’s 
further  involvement  at  this  time.    That  is  because  the 
State’s  regulation  provides  that  there  will  be  a  45-day
regulatory transition period before the new law is applied. 
The  State  represents,  moreover,  that  Louisiana  will  not 
“move  aggressively  to  enforce  the  challenged  law”  during
the transition period, Objection to Emergency Application 
for Stay 2, and further represents that abortion providers
will not “immediately be forced to cease operations,” id., at 
25.  Louisiana’s regulation together with its express repre-
sentations  to  this  Court  establish  that  even  without  ad-
mitting  privileges,  these  three  doctors  (Doe  2,  Doe  5,  and 
Doe 6) could lawfully continue to perform abortions at the 
clinics during the 45-day transition period.  Furthermore, 
during  the  45-day  transition  period,  both  the  doctors  and
the relevant hospitals could act expeditiously and in good
faith to reach a definitive conclusion about whether those 
three doctors can obtain admitting privileges. 

If the doctors, after good-faith efforts during the 45-day
period,  cannot  obtain  admitting  privileges,  then  the  Fifth
Circuit’s  factual  predictions,  which  were  made  in  the 
context  of  a  pre-enforcement  facial  challenge,  could  turn
out to be inaccurate as applied.  And if that turns out to be