Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

13 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

(addressing waiver of structural rather than prudential ob-
jections).

The State refers to the Fifth Circuit’s finding of standing 
in Whole Woman’s Health  as an excuse for its concession. 
Brief  for  Respondent  in  No.  18–1323,  p.  52  (Brief  for  Re-
spondent).  But  the  standing  argument  the  State  makes 
here rests on reasons that it tells us are specific to abortion 
providers in Louisiana.  See id., at 41–48.  We are not per-
suaded that the State could have thought it was precluded 
from making those arguments by a decision with respect to 
Texas doctors. 

And even if the State had merely forfeited its objection by 
failing to raise it at any point over the last five years, we
would not now undo all that has come before on that basis. 
What we said some 45 years ago in Craig applies equally
today: “[A] decision by us to forgo consideration of the con-
stitutional  merits”—after  “the  parties  have  sought  or  at 
least have never resisted an authoritative constitutional de-
termination” in the courts below—“in order to await the in-
itiation of a new challenge to the statute by injured third 
parties  would  be  impermissibly  to  foster  repetitive  and
time-consuming  litigation  under  the  guise  of  caution  and 
prudence.”  429 U. S., at 193–194 (quotation altered).

In any event, the rule the State invokes is hardly abso-
lute.  We have long permitted abortion providers to invoke
the rights of their actual or potential patients in challenges 
to  abortion-related  regulations.  See,  e.g.,  Whole  Woman’s 
Health, 579 U. S., at ___; Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 133; Ayotte 
v.  Planned  Parenthood  of  Northern  New  Eng.,  546  U. S. 
320,  324  (2006);  Stenberg  v.  Carhart,  530  U. S.  914,  922 
(2000);  Mazurek  v.  Armstrong,  520  U. S.  968,  969–970 
(1997) (per curiam); Casey, 505 U. S., at 845 (majority opin-
ion); Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 
462 U. S. 416, 440, n. 30 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Cen-
tral Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 62 (1976); Doe v. Bolton, 
410 U. S. 179, 188–189 (1973).