Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 61

16 

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

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

findings from the same record.  These District Court find-
ings  “entail[ed]  primarily  . . .  factual  work”  and  therefore 
are  “review[ed]  only  for  clear  error.”  U. S.  Bank  N. A.  v. 
Village  at  Lakeridge,  LLC,  583  U. S.  ___,  ___,  ___  (2018) 
(slip op., at 6, 9).  Clear error review follows from a candid 
appraisal of the comparative advantages of trial courts and
appellate courts.  “While we review transcripts for a living,
they listen to witnesses for a living.  While we largely read 
briefs for a living, they largely assess the credibility of par-
ties and witnesses for a living.”  Taglieri v. Monasky, 907 
F. 3d 404, 408 (CA6 2018) (en banc). 

We accordingly will not disturb the factual conclusions of
the trial court unless we are “left with the definite and firm 
conviction  that  a  mistake  has  been  committed.”  United 
States  v.  United  States  Gypsum  Co.,  333  U. S.  364,  395 
(1948).  In  my  view,  the  District  Court’s  work  reveals  no
such  clear  error,  for  the  reasons  the  plurality  explains. 
Ante, at 19–35.  The District Court findings therefore bind 
us in this case. 

* 

* 

* 
Stare  decisis  instructs  us  to  treat  like  cases  alike.    The 
result in this case is controlled by our decision four years
ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law.  The Louisi-
ana  law  burdens  women  seeking  previability  abortions  to 
the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual find-
ings that are not clearly erroneous.  For that reason, I con-
cur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is 
unconstitutional.