Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

24 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

F. 3d, at 807.  The problem is that the law requires appel-
late courts to review a trial court’s findings under the def-
erential clear-error standard we have described.  See supra,
at 17–18.  Our review of the record convinces us that the 
Court of Appeals misapplied that standard.

JUSTICE ALITO does not dispute that the District Court’s
findings are not “clearly erroneous.”  He argues instead that
both  the  District  Court  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  applied
the wrong legal standard to the record in this case.  By ask-
ing whether the doctors acted in “good faith,” he contends,
the courts below failed to account for the doctors’ supposed
“incentive to do as little as” possible to obtain conforming 
privileges.  Post, at 12–14 (dissenting opinion); cf. post, at 
11–12 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting).  But that is not a legal ar-
gument at all.  It is simply another way of saying that the 
doctors acted in bad faith.  The District Court, after moni-
toring the doctors’ efforts for a year and a half, found other-
wise.  And  “[w]hen  the  record  is  examined  in  light  of  the
appropriately  deferential  standard,  it  is  apparent  that  it 
contains nothing that mandates a finding that the District 
Court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous.”  Anderson, 470 
U. S., at 577. 

Doe 2 
The District Court found that Doe 2 tried in good faith to 
get admitting privileges within 30 miles of his Shreveport-
area clinic.  250 F. Supp. 3d, at 68.  The Court of Appeals 
thought that conclusion clearly erroneous for three reasons. 
First,  the  appeals  court  suggested  that  Doe  2  failed  to 
submit the data needed to process his application to Boss-
ier’s Willis-Knighton Health Center.  905 F. 3d, at 808.  It 
is true that Doe 2 submitted no additional information in 
response to the last letter he received from Willis-Knighton. 
But the record explains that failure.  Doe 2 reasonably be-
lieved there was no point in doing so.  The hospital’s letter