Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 116.0

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

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] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting. 
The  judicial  power  is  constrained  by  an  array  of  rules. 
Rules about the deference due the legislative process, the 
standing of the parties before us, the use of facial challenges 
to  invalidate  democratically  enacted  statutes,  and  the 
award of prospective relief.  Still more rules seek to ensure 
that any legal tests judges may devise are capable of neu-
tral  and  principled  administration.    Individually,  these
rules may seem prosaic.  But, collectively, they help keep us
in  our  constitutionally  assigned  lane,  sure  that  we  are  in 
the business of saying what the law is, not what we wish it 
to be. 

Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. 
It  overlooks  one  after  another.    And  it  does  so  in  a  case