Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, L.L.C. v. GEE 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

the plaintiffs, three of those four doctors will not be able to
obtain  admitting  privileges.  As  I  explain  below,  even 
without a stay, the status quo will be effectively preserved
for all parties during the State’s 45-day regulatory transi-
tion period.  I would deny the stay without prejudice to the 
plaintiffs’ ability to bring a later as-applied complaint and 
motion for preliminary injunction at the conclusion of the 
45-day  regulatory  transition  period  if  the  Fifth  Circuit’s 
factual  prediction  about  the  doctors’  ability  to  obtain 
admitting privileges proves to be inaccurate.

Louisiana’s new law requires doctors who perform abor-
tions  to  have  admitting  privileges  at  a  nearby  hospital.
The  question  presented  to  us  at  this  time  is  whether  the
law imposes an undue burden under our decision in Whole 
Woman’s  Health  v.  Hellerstedt,  579  U. S.  ___  (2016).    All 
parties, including the State of Louisiana, agree that Whole 
Woman’s Health is the governing precedent for purposes of 
this  stay  application.    I  therefore  will  analyze  the  stay
application under that precedent.

Louisiana has three clinics that currently provide abor-
tions.  As relevant here, four doctors perform abortions at
those  three  clinics.    One  of  those  four  doctors  has  admit-
ting  privileges  at  a  nearby  hospital,  as  required  by
the  new  law.  The  question  is  whether  the  other  three 
doctors—Doe  2,  Doe  5,  and  Doe  6—can  obtain  the  neces-
sary  admitting  privileges.    If  they  can,  then  the  three
clinics could continue providing abortions.  And if so, then 
the  new  law  would  not  impose  an  undue  burden  for  pur-
poses of Whole Woman’s Health.  By contrast, if the three 
doctors  cannot  obtain  admitting  privileges,  then  one  or 
two  of  the  three  clinics  would  not  be  able  to  continue 
providing  abortions.  If  so,  then  even  the  State  acknowl-
edges  that  the  new  law  might  be  deemed  to  impose  an 
undue burden for purposes of Whole Woman’s Health. 

The law has not yet taken effect, so the case comes to us
in the context of a pre-enforcement facial challenge.  That