Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 63

2 

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Despite the fact that we granted Louisiana’s petition spe-
cifically  to  address  whether  “abortion  providers  [can]  be
presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health 
and safety regulations on behalf of their patients,” Condi-
tional  Cross-Pet.  in  No.  18–1460,  p.  i,  a  majority  of  the 
Court all but ignores the question.  The plurality and THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional bar-
rier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional un-
der our precedents.  But those decisions created the right to 
abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from 
the Constitution’s text.  Our abortion precedents are griev-
ously wrong and should be overruled.  Because we have nei-
ther  jurisdiction  nor  constitutional  authority  to  declare 
Louisiana’s  duly  enacted  law  unconstitutional,  I  respect-
fully dissent.  

I 
For  most  of  its  history,  this  Court  maintained  that  pri-
vate parties could not bring suit to vindicate the constitu-
tional  rights  of  individuals  who  are  not  before  the  Court. 
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 135 (2004) (THOMAS, J., 
concurring) (citing Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 118 
(1900)).  But in the 20th century, the Court began to deviate 
from this traditional rule against third-party standing.  See 
Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 38–39 (1915); Pierce v. Society 
of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535–536 (1925).  From these devi-
ations  emerged  our  prudential  third-party  standing  doc-
trine, which allows litigants to vicariously assert the con-
stitutional  rights  of  others  when  “the  party  asserting  the 
right  has  a  ‘close’  relationship  with  the  person  who  pos-
sesses the right” and “there is a ‘hindrance’ to the posses-
sor’s ability to protect his own interests.”  Kowalski, supra, 
at 130 (quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 411 (1991)).1 

—————— 

1 In practice, this doctrine’s application has been unconvincing and un-
predictable, which has long caused me to question its legitimacy.  See, 
e.g.,  United  States  v.  Sineneng-Smith,  590  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2020)