Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

39 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

VII 
As a postscript, we explain why we have found unconvinc-
ing  several  further  arguments  that  the  State  has  made. 
First, the State suggests that the record supports the Court
of Appeals’ conclusion that Act 620 poses no substantial ob-
stacle to the abortion decision.  See Brief for Respondent 73, 
80.  This  argument  misconceives  the  question  before  us. 
“The question we must answer” is “not whether the [Fifth]
Circuit’s interpretation of the facts was clearly erroneous, 
but whether the District Court’s finding[s were] clearly er-
roneous.”  Anderson, 470 U. S., at 577 (emphasis added).  As 
we  have  explained,  we  think  the  District  Court’s  factual
findings here are plausible in light of the record as a whole.
Nothing in the State’s briefing furnishes a basis to disturb
that conclusion. 

Second, the State says that the record does not show that
Act 620 will burden every woman in Louisiana who seeks 
an  abortion.  Brief  for  Respondent  69–70  (citing  United 
States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987)).  True, but be-
side the point.  As we stated in Casey, a State’s abortion-
related law is unconstitutional on its face if “it will operate
as a substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice to undergo an 
abortion” in “a large fraction of the cases in which [it] is rel-
evant.”  505  U. S.,  at  895  (majority  opinion).    In  Whole 
Woman’s  Health,  we  reaffirmed  that  standard.  We  made 
clear  that  the  phrase  refers  to  a  large  fraction  of  “those 
women for whom the provision is an actual rather than an 
irrelevant  restriction.”  579  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  39)
(quoting Casey, 505 U. S., at 895; brackets omitted).  That 
standard, not an “every woman” standard, is the standard 
that must govern in this case. 

Third, the State argues that Act 620 would not make it 
“nearly  impossible”  for  a  woman  to  obtain  an  abortion. 
Brief for Respondent 71–72.  But, again, the words “nearly 
impossible” do not describe the legal standard that governs
here.  Since Casey, we have repeatedly reiterated that the