Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 137

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, 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 KAVANAUGH, dissenting. 
I join Parts I, II, and III of JUSTICE ALITO’s dissent.  A 
threshold question in this case concerns the proper stand-
ard for evaluating state abortion laws.  The Louisiana law 
at  issue  here  requires  doctors  who  perform  abortions  to
have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of 
the abortion clinic.  The State asks us to assess the law by 
applying 
the  undue  burden  standard  of  Planned 
Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,  505  U. S.  833 
(1992).1    The  plaintiffs  ask  us  to  apply  the  cost-benefit 
standard of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U. S. 
___ (2016).

Today,  five  Members  of  the  Court  reject  the  Whole 

—————— 

1 The State has not asked the Court to depart from the Casey standard.