Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 18–1323 and 18–1460 
_________________ 

18–1323 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C., ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
STEPHEN RUSSO, INTERIM SECRETARY, 
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HOSPITALS 

STEPHEN RUSSO, INTERIM SECRETARY, 
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HOSPITALS, PETITIONER 
v. 
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C., ET AL. 

18–1460 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 29, 2020] 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the judgment. 
In July 2013, Texas enacted a law requiring a physician 
performing an abortion to have “active admitting privileges
at a hospital . . . located not further than 30 miles from the 
location at which the abortion is performed.”  Tex. Health 
& Safety Code Ann. §171.0031(a)(1)(A) (West Cum. Supp.
2019).  The  law  caused  the  number  of  facilities  providing
abortions to drop in half.  In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hel-
lerstedt,  579  U. S.  ___  (2016),  the  Court  concluded  that
Texas’s  admitting  privileges  requirement  “places  a  sub-
stantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previabil-
ity abortion” and therefore violated the Due Process Clause
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  2)
(citing  Planned  Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,