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

14 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

And  we  have  generally  permitted  plaintiffs  to  assert 
third-party rights in cases where the “ ‘enforcement of the
challenged restriction against the litigant would result in-
directly in the violation of third parties’ rights.’ ”  Kowalski, 
543 U. S., at 130 (quoting Warth, 422 U. S., at 510); see, e.g., 
Department of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U. S. 715, 720 (1990) 
(Scalia, J., for the Court) (attorney raising rights of clients 
to challenge restrictions on fee arrangements); Craig, 429 
U. S., at 192 (convenience store raising rights of young men 
to challenge sex-based restriction on beer sales); Doe, 410 
U. S., at 188 (abortion provider raising the rights of preg-
nant women to access an abortion); Carey v. Population Ser-
vices Int’l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977) (distributors of contracep-
tives raising rights of prospective purchasers to challenge 
restrictions on sales of contraceptives); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 
405 U. S. 438 (1972) (similar); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 
U. S.  479,  481  (1965)  (similar);  Sullivan  v.  Little  Hunting 
Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 (1969) (white property owner rais-
ing  rights  of  black  contractual  counterparty  to  challenge 
discriminatory restrictions on ability to contract); Barrows 
v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953) (similar).  In such cases, we 
have explained, “the obvious claimant” and “the least awk-
ward  challenger”  is  the  party  upon  whom  the  challenged
statute imposes “legal duties and disabilities.”  Craig, 429 
U. S.,  at  196–197;  see  Akron,  462  U. S.,  at  440,  n.  30; 
Danforth, 428 U. S., at 62; Doe, 410 U. S., at 188. 

The  case  before  us  lies  at  the  intersection  of  these  two 
lines  of  precedent.    The  plaintiffs  are  abortion  providers
challenging a law that regulates their conduct.  The “threat-
ened imposition of governmental sanctions” for noncompli-
ance eliminates any risk that their claims are abstract or 
hypothetical.  Craig, 429 U. S., at 195.  That threat also as-
sures us that the plaintiffs have every incentive to “resist
efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates
of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market
or function.”  Ibid.  And, as the parties who must actually