Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 93

12 

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

ALITO, J., dissenting 

to do that, the court apparently concluded that none of the
doctors who currently perform abortions in the State would
be replaced if the admitting privileges requirement forced
them  to  leave  abortion  practice.    250  F. Supp.  3d,  at  82. 
That inference is debatable, as it primarily rests on the an-
ecdotal testimony of June Medical’s administrator.  See id., 
at  81–82;  App.  113–114.    Neither  the  plurality  nor  THE 
CHIEF  JUSTICE  explains  why  it  should  be  accepted.  That 
alone casts doubt on the finding to which the majority de-
fers, but the problems with the finding do not stop there. 

The  finding  was  based  on  a  fundamentally  flawed  test.
In  attempting  to  ascertain  how  many  of  the  doctors  who 
perform abortions in the State would have to leave abortion
practice for lack of admitting privileges, the District Court
received  evidence  in  a  variety  of  forms—some  live  testi-
mony,  but  also  deposition  transcripts,  declarations,  and 
even letters from counsel—about the doctors’ unsuccessful 
efforts to obtain privileges.  The District Court considered 
whether  these  doctors  had  proceeded  in  “good  faith”;  it
found that they all met that standard; and it therefore con-
cluded  that  the  law  would  leave  the  State  with  very  few 
abortion providers. 

2 
Under the reasoning just described, the factual finding on
which the plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE rely—that the 
Louisiana law would drastically reduce access to abortion 
in the State—depends on the District Court’s finding that 
the doctors in question exercised “good faith” in their quest
for privileges, but that test is woefully deficient.

It  has  aptly  been  said  that  “good  faith”  “ ‘is  an  elusive 
idea,  taking  on  different  meanings  and  emphases  as  we 
move from one context to another.’ ”  Black’s Law Dictionary 
836  (11th  ed.  2019).  What  the  District  Court  understood 
the term to mean in the present context is uncertain, but