Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 82

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 18–1323 and 18–1460 
_________________ 

18–1323 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C., ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
STEPHEN RUSSO, INTERIM SECRETARY, 
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HOSPITALS 

STEPHEN RUSSO, INTERIM SECRETARY, 
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HOSPITALS, PETITIONER 
v. 
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C., ET AL. 

18–1460 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 29, 2020] 

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, with
whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins except as to Parts III–C and
IV–F,  and  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH  joins  as  to
Parts I, II, and III, dissenting. 

The majority bills today’s decision as a facsimile of Whole 
Woman’s  Health  v.  Hellerstedt,  579  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2016), 
and it’s true they have something in common.  In both, the 
abortion right recognized in this Court’s decisions is used 
like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way.
In Whole Woman’s Health, res judicata and our standard
approach  to  severability  were  laid  low.    Even  Planned 
Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,  505  U. S.  833 
(1992), was altered.