Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 111.0

30 

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

ALITO, J., dissenting 

is  little  reason  to  think  that  a  woman  who  challenges  an
abortion restriction will have to pay for counsel.  See Brief 
for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner 40–41. 

Second,  if  a  woman  seeking  an  abortion  brings  suit,
her claim will survive the end of her pregnancy under the
capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to moot-
ness.  See  Roe  v.  Wade,  410  U. S.  113,  125  (1973)  (“Preg-
nancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of non-
mootness”).  To be sure, when the pregnancy terminates, an
individual plaintiff ’s immediate interest in prosecuting the 
case may diminish.  But this is generally true whenever the 
capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applies. 
See 13C Wright & Miller §3533.8 (collecting examples). 

The  Singleton  plurality  opinion  is  the  only  opinion  in
which any Members of this Court have ever attempted to 
justify  third-party  standing  for  abortion  providers,  and
judged on its own merits, the opinion is thoroughly uncon-
vincing. 

E 
The Court does not address the conflict of interest inher-
ent in this challenge, or plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the two 
prongs of our third-party standing doctrine. See Kowalski, 
543 U. S., at 130.  Instead, the plurality says that it “is . . . 
common” in third-party standing case law for “plaintiffs [to] 
challeng[e]  a  law  ostensibly  enacted  to  protect  [a  third
party]  whose  rights  they  are  asserting.”    Ante,  at  15.  In 

—————— 
Matheson, 450 U. S. 398 (1981).  But there are a number of cases in which 
women have been co-plaintiffs along with abortion clinics or providers.
See Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U. S. 137 (1996) (per curiam); Ohio v. Akron 
Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S. 502 (1990); Hodgson v. Minne-
sota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990); Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U. S. 358 (1980); Har-
ris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297 (1980); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622 (1979); 
Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).  More recently, abortion patients have
litigated in the lower courts using their names, those of legal guardians, 
or pseudonyms.  Brief for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner 39; see also Brief
for State of Arkansas et al. as Amici Curiae 3, and n. 1.