Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

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

11 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

health basis for the law”—to be “squarely foreclosed by Ca-
sey itself.”  Id., at 973 (internal quotation marks omitted; 
emphasis added).

We  should  respect  the  statement  in  Whole  Woman’s 
Health that it was applying the undue burden standard of 
Casey.  The opinion in Whole Woman’s Health began by say-
ing,  “We  must  here  decide  whether  two  provisions  of  [the 
Texas law] violate the Federal Constitution as interpreted 
in Casey.”  579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).  Nothing more.
The Court explicitly stated that it was applying “the stand-
ard, as described in Casey,” and reversed the Court of Ap-
peals  for  applying  an  approach  that  did  “not  match  the 
standard that this Court laid out in Casey.”  Id., at ___, ___ 
(slip op., at 19, 20).

Here  the  plurality  expressly  acknowledges  that  we  are 
not considering how to analyze an abortion regulation that 
does not present a substantial obstacle.  “That,” the plural-
ity  explains,  “is  not  this  case.”    Ante,  at  40.  In  this  case, 
Casey’s requirement of finding a substantial obstacle before 
invalidating an abortion regulation is therefore a sufficient 
basis for the decision, as it was in Whole Woman’s Health. 
In neither case, nor in Casey itself, was there call for con-
sideration of a regulation’s benefits, and nothing in Casey
commands such consideration.  Under principles of stare de-
cisis, I agree with the  plurality that the determination in 
Whole Woman’s Health that Texas’s law imposed a substan-
tial obstacle requires the same determination about Louisi-
ana’s law.  Under those same principles, I would adhere to 
the holding of Casey, requiring a substantial obstacle before 
striking down an abortion regulation. 

B 
Whole Woman’s Health held that Texas’s admitting priv-
ileges  requirement  placed  “a  substantial  obstacle  in  the 
path of women seeking a previability abortion,” independ-
ent of its discussion of benefits.  579 U. S., at ___ (slip op.,