Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 7

2 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

this standard requires courts independently to review the 
legislative findings upon which an abortion-related statute 
rests and to weigh the law’s “asserted benefits against the
burdens”  it  imposes  on  abortion  access.  579  U. S.,  at  ___
(slip op., at 21) (citing Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 
165 (2007)).

The Texas statute at issue in Whole Woman’s Health re-
quired abortion providers to hold “ ‘active admitting privi-
leges at a hospital’ ” within 30 miles of the place where they 
perform abortions.  579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (quoting 
Tex. Health & Safety Ann. Code §171.0031(a) (West Cum. 
Supp. 2015)).  Reviewing the record for ourselves, we found 
ample evidence to support the District Court’s finding that
the statute did not further the State’s asserted interest in 
protecting  women’s  health.    The  evidence  showed,  moreo-
ver, that conditions on admitting privileges that served no 
“relevant credentialing function,” 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at  25),  “help[ed]  to  explain”  the  closure  of  half  of  Texas’ 
abortion clinics, id., at ___ (slip op., at 24).  Those closures 
placed a substantial obstacle in the path of Texas women
seeking an abortion.  Ibid.  And that obstacle, “when viewed 
in  light  of  the  virtual  absence  of  any  health  benefit,”  im-
posed an “undue burden” on abortion access in violation of
the  Federal  Constitution.  Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  26);  see 
Casey, 505 U. S., at 878 (plurality opinion).

In this case, we consider the constitutionality of a Louisi-
ana statute, Act 620, that is almost word-for-word identical 
to Texas’ admitting-privileges law.  See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 
§40:1061.10(A)(2)(a)  (West  2020).    As  in  Whole  Woman’s 
Health, the District Court found that the statute offers no 
significant health benefit.  It found that conditions on ad-
mitting  privileges  common  to  hospitals  throughout  the 
State have made and will continue to make it impossible for 
abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for rea-
sons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted in-
terests  in  promoting  women’s  health  and  safety.    And  it