Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 128

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

13 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

lawfully  perform  abortions  tomorrow.    Millions  of  Ameri-
cans move between States every year to pursue their pro-
fession.  Yet with conditions ripe for market entry and ex-
pansion,  today’s  decision  foresees  nothing  but  clinic 
closures and unmet demand. 

Not only questionable, the plurality’s assumptions are al-
ready contradicted by emerging evidence.  For example, a
major hospital reacted to the law by developing a new type 
of  admitting  privileges  expressly  for  an  abortion  provider
seeking to comply with Act 620.  Whether this type of priv-
ileges  satisfies  the  statute  is  yet  unknown—so,  again  as-
suming the worst, today’s decision simply ignores the pos-
sibility. 
If  nothing  else,  this  development  belies  the 
prediction that hospitals statewide would stand idly by as 
thousands upon thousands of requests for abortions go un-
fulfilled. 

What’s more, as this suit was in progress, the State dis-
covered two additional Louisiana abortion providers not re-
flected in the district court’s opinion.  No one disputes the 
accuracy of the State’s information about these two provid-
ers.  Nor  could  anyone  deny  the  importance  of  this  infor-
mation, when so much of today’s decision seems to turn on 
the  exact  quantity  and  distribution  of  a  relatively  small 
number of abortion providers.  Normally, this Court might
hesitate to deliver a fact-bound decision premised on facts 
we know to be incorrect.  But today’s decision, assuming the 
worst  once  more,  simply  proceeds  as  if  these  providers
didn’t exist. 

If there is a silver lining, though, it may be here.  This 
Court  generally  recognizes  that  facts  can  change  over
time—and  that, when  they do, legal conclusions based on 
them may have to change as well.  Even so-called “perma-
nent injunctions” are actually provisional—open to modifi-
cation  “to  prevent  the  possibility  that  [they]  may  operate
injuriously in the future.”  Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 
U. S. 177, 179 (1933) (per curiam).  After all, when the facts