Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

25 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

explained that the data Doe 2 had already “submitted sup-
ports  the  outpatient  [abortion]  procedures  you  per-
form[ed].”  App. 1435.  But, the letter added, this data did 
“not support your request for hospital privileges” because it 
did not allow the hospital to “evaluate patient admissions 
and  management,  consultations,  and  procedures  per-
formed.”  Ibid.  Doe 2 testified at trial that he understood 
this to mean that he would have to submit records of hospi-
tal admissions, even though he had not “done any in-hospi-
tal work in ten years.”  Id., at 387; see id., at 437 (“I’ve ex-
plained  that  that  information  doesn’t  exist”).    Doe  2’s 
understanding was consistent with Willis-Knighton’s simi-
lar letter to Doe 1, which explicitly stated that “we require
that you submit documentation of hospital admissions and 
management of patients . . . .”  Id., at 1436.  The record also 
shows that Doe 2 could not have maintained the “adequate 
number of inpatient contacts” Willis-Knighton requires to
support continued privileges.  Record 9640; see App. 387–
390, 404.  JUSTICE ALITO faults Doe 2 for failing to pursue
an application for “courtesy staff ” privileges.  See post, at 
18–19.  For one thing, it is far from clear that courtesy priv-
ileges entitle a physician to admit patients, as Act 620 re-
quires.  Compare, e.g., Record 9640 with id., at 9643.  For 
another, that would not solve the problem that Doe 2 lacked 
the  required  in-hospital  experience.  JUSTICE  ALITO  won-
ders  whether  Willis-Knighton  might  have  conferred  cour-
tesy privileges even without that experience.  But the fac-
tors  the  hospital  considers  for  both  tiers  of  privileges  are
facially identical.  Id., at 9669.  We have no license to re-
verse  a  trial  court’s  factual  findings  based  on  speculative
inferences from facts not in evidence. 

Second, the Court of Appeals found Doe 2’s explanation 
that Christus Schumpert Hospital “would not staff an abor-
tion provider” to be “blatantly contradicted by the record.” 
905 F. 3d, at 808.  The record, however, contains Christus’ 
bylaws.  They  state  that  “[n]o  activity  prohibited  by”  the