Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

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

Syllabus 

the plaintiff doctors to continue to seek privileges and to keep the court 
apprised of their progress.  Several months later, after a 6-day bench 
trial, the District Court declared Act 620 unconstitutional on its face 
and  preliminarily  enjoined  its  enforcement.    On  remand  in  light  of 
Whole Woman’s Health, the District Court ruled favorably on the plain-
tiffs’ request for a permanent injunction on the basis of the record pre-
viously developed, finding, among other things, that the law offers no 
significant health benefit; that conditions on admitting privileges com-
mon to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to 
make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privi-
leges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted in-
terests in promoting women’s health and safety; and that this inability
places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion.
The court concluded that the law imposes an undue burden and is thus
unconstitutional.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, agreeing with the Dis-
trict Court’s interpretation of the standards that apply to abortion reg-
ulations, but disagreeing with nearly every one of the District Court’s 
factual findings. 

Held: The judgment is reversed. 

905 F. 3d 787, reversed. 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  joined  by  JUSTICE  GINSBURG,  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR, 

and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded: 

1. The State’s unmistakable concession of standing as part of its ef-
fort to obtain a quick decision from the District Court on the merits of
the plaintiffs’ undue-burden claims and a long line of well-established 
precedents foreclose its belated challenge to the plaintiffs’ standing in
this Court.  Pp. 11–16.

2. Given the District Court’s factual findings and precedents, partic-
ularly  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  Act  620  violates  the  Constitution. 
Pp. 16–40. 

(a) Under the applicable constitutional standards set forth in the 
Court’s  earlier  abortion-related 
cases,  particularly  Planned 
Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,  505  U. S.  833,  and  Whole 
Woman’s  Health,  “ ‘[u]nnecessary  health  regulations  that  have  the 
purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seek-
ing an abortion impose an undue burden on the right’ ” and are there-
fore  “constitutionally  invalid,”  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  579  U. S.,  at 
___.  This standard requires courts independently to review the legis-
lative  findings  upon  which  an  abortion-related  statute  rests  and  to 
weigh the law’s “asserted benefits against the burdens” it imposes on
abortion access.  Id., at ___.  The District Court here, like the trial court 
in  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  faithfully  applied  these  standards.    The