Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

17 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

We  held  in  Whole  Woman’s  Health  that  the  trial  court 
faithfully applied these standards.  It “considered the evi-
dence in the record—including expert evidence, presented 
in stipulations, depositions, and testimony.”  579 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 21).  It “then weighed the asserted benefits” 
of the law “against the burdens” it imposed on abortion ac-
cess.  Ibid.  And it concluded that the balance tipped against
the  statute’s  constitutionality.  The  District  Court  in  this 
suit did the same. 

B 
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court,
not so much in respect to the legal standards that we have 
just set forth, but because it did not agree with the factual 
findings on which the District Court relied in assessing both
the  burdens  that  Act  620  imposes  and  the  health-related 
benefits it might bring.  Compare, e.g., supra, at 6–9, with 
supra, at 9–11.  We have consequently reviewed the record 
in detail ourselves.  In doing so, we have applied well-estab-
lished legal standards. 

We start from the premise that a district court’s findings
of fact, “whether based on oral or other evidence, must not 
be  set  aside  unless  clearly  erroneous,  and  the  reviewing
court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity
to  judge  the  witnesses’  credibility.”  Fed.  Rule  Civ.  Proc. 
52(a)(6).  In “ ‘applying [this] standard to the findings of a
district court sitting without a jury, appellate courts must 
constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide 
factual  issues  de  novo.’ ”  Anderson  v.  Bessemer  City,  470 
U. S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazel-
tine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 123 (1969)).  Where “the 
district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light 
of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may
not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting
as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence dif-
ferently.”  Anderson, 470 U. S., at 573–574.  “A finding that