Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 73

12 

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977).4 

To  the  extent  Justice  Stevens’  opinion  could  be  read  as
concluding  that  abortionists  have  standing  to  vicariously
assert their clients’ rights so long as the abortionists estab-
lish  standing  on  their  own  legal  claims,  his  position  has
been abrogated by this Court’s more recent decisions, which 
have “confirm[ed] that a plaintiff must demonstrate stand-
ing  for  each  claim  he  seeks  to  press.”    DaimlerChrysler 
Corp., 547 U. S., at 352.  But more importantly, Justice Ste-
vens’  opinion  does  not  support  the  abortionists  in  these 
cases, because his opinion rested on case-specific facts not 
implicated  here—namely,  the  fact  that  the  abortionists 
would directly receive Medicaid payments from the defend-
ant agency if they prevailed and that they asserted viola-
tions  of  their  own  constitutional  rights.    In  these  cases, 
there is no dispute that the abortionists’ sole claim before
this  Court  is  that  Louisiana’s  law  violates  the  purported
substantive due process rights of their clients. 

2 
Under  a  proper  understanding  of  Article  III,  plaintiffs 
lack standing.  As explained above, in suits seeking to vin-
dicate private rights, the owners of those rights can estab-
lish a sufficient injury simply by asserting that their rights
have been violated.  Constitutional rights are generally con-
sidered “private rights” to the extent they “ ‘ belon[g] to in-
dividuals, considered as individuals.’ ”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 
___  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  3)  (quoting  3 
Blackstone,  Commentaries  *2);  see  also  United  States  v. 

—————— 

4 Three Justices of this Court have recently taken the position that this 
rule from Marks, 430 U. S. 188, does not necessarily apply in all 4–1–4
cases,  and  that  such  decisions  can  sometimes  produce  “no  controlling 
opinion at all.”  Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (principal 
opinion) (slip op., at 18).  But even under their view, Justice Blackmun’s 
plurality in Singleton would not be considered binding precedent.