Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 100.0

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

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

whether  the  hospital  would  have  made  the  same  request 
had Doe 2 applied for courtesy privileges.  Id., at 1435.11 

Doe 2 said he made an informal inquiry about admitting
privileges at University Hospital, where he has consulting 
privileges, but that the head of the OB/GYN Department,
Dr. Groome, “essentially said” that the hospital would not
upgrade his credentials.  Id., at 384.  Doe 2 attributed this 
to “the political nature of what I do and the controversy of
what I do.”  Ibid.  But Doe 2 did not introduce evidence (or
seek  to  elicit  testimony  from  Dr.  Groome)  substantiating 
his account of this informal inquiry. 

Doe 2’s account raises obvious questions.  Since he was 
already a member of the University Hospital staff, it is not 
apparent why the hospital would reject his request for up-
graded  privileges  because  of  “the  political  nature”  of  his 
practice.  Id., at 440–441.  And University Hospital has long 
been  on  notice  of  Doe  2’s  abortion  practice.    He  has  been 
affiliated with that hospital since 1979, Record 9757, and 
has performed abortions since 1980, id., at 9759. 

In sum, Doe 2 all but admitted in his e-mails that his ef-
forts  to  obtain  privileges  were  perfunctory;  he  declined  to 
apply at a hospital where he previously had privileges; at 
the  only  hospital  where  he  made  a  formal  application,  he
sought a position he knew he could not get for lack of a suf-
ficient  number  of  admissions;  and  at  one  other  hospital 
(where he already had consulting privileges) he did no more
than make an informal inquiry.  The District Court should 
have  considered  whether  Doe  2’s  efforts  were  consistent 
—————— 

11 Each year, a physician with courtesy staff privileges at WKBC may 
have as many as 49 “patient contacts,” which are defined as “any admis-
sion and management, consultation, procedure, response to emergency
call,  and  newborns.”    Record  9628,  9642  (capitalization  omitted).    And 
contrary to the plurality’s suggestion, the fact that WKBC imposes the 
same “[f]actors for [e]valuation” for courtesy and active staff-applicants
says little, since those factors do not set out any quantum of patient rec-
ords, and require only “relevant . . . experience” for the position sought. 
Id., at 9669.