Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 83.0

2 

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

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Today’s decision claims new victims.  The divided major-
ity cannot agree on what the abortion right requires, but it 
nevertheless  strikes  down  a  Louisiana  law,  Act  620,  that 
the legislature enacted for the asserted purpose of protect-
ing women’s health.  To achieve this end, the majority mis-
uses  the  doctrine  of  stare  decisis,  invokes  an  inapplicable
standard of appellate review, and distorts the record. 

The  plurality  eschews  the  constitutional  test  set  out  in 
Casey  and  instead  employs  the  balancing  test  adopted  in 
Whole  Woman’s  Health.  The  plurality  concludes  that  the
Louisiana law does nothing to protect the health of women, 
but that is disproved by substantial evidence in the record. 
And the plurality upholds the District Court’s finding that
the  Louisiana  law  would  cause  a  drastic  reduction  in  the 
number of abortion providers in the State even though this
finding  was  based  on  an  erroneous  legal  standard  and  a 
thoroughly inadequate factual inquiry.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE stresses the importance of stare deci-
sis  and  thinks  that  precedent,  namely  Whole  Woman’s 
Health, dooms the Louisiana law.  But at the same time, he 
votes  to  overrule  Whole  Woman’s  Health  insofar  as  it 
changed the Casey test. 

Both  the  plurality  and  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  hold  that 
abortion  providers  can  invoke  a  woman’s  abortion  right 
when they attack state laws that are enacted to protect a 
woman’s health.  Neither waiver nor stare decisis can jus-
tify  this  holding,  which  clashes  with  our  general  rule  on 
third-party standing.  And the idea that a regulated party
can invoke the right of a third party for the purpose of at-
tacking  legislation  enacted  to  protect  the  third  party  is 
stunning.  Given the apparent conflict of interest, that con-
cept would be rejected out of hand in a case not involving 
abortion. 

For these reasons, I cannot join the decision of the Court. 
I would remand the case to the District Court and instruct 
that  court,  before  proceeding  any  further,  to  require  the