Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 18–1323.  Argued March 4, 2020—Decided June 29, 2020* 

Louisiana’s Act 620, which is almost word-for-word identical to the Texas 
“admitting privileges” law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Heller-
stedt, 579 U. S. ___, requires any doctor who performs abortions to hold
“active admitting privileges at a hospital . . . located not further than 
thirty  miles  from  the  location  at  which  the  abortion  is  performed  or 
induced,” and defines “active admitting privileges” as being “a member 
in good standing” of the hospital’s “medical staff . . . with the ability to
admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical services to such 
patient.”

In these consolidated cases, five abortion clinics and four abortion 
providers challenged Act 620 before it was to take effect, alleging that 
it  was  unconstitutional  because  (among  other  things)  it  imposed  an
undue burden on the right of their patients to obtain an abortion.  (The
plaintiff providers and two additional doctors are referred to as Does 1
through  6.)    The  plaintiffs  asked  for  a  temporary  restraining  order 
(TRO), followed by a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from 
taking effect.  The defendant (State) opposed the TRO request but also 
urged the court not to delay ruling on the preliminary injunction mo-
tion, asserting that there was no doubt about the physicians’ standing.
Rather than staying the Act’s effective date, the District Court provi-
sionally forbade the State to enforce the Act’s penalties, while directing 

—————— 

* Together with No. 18–1460, Russo, Interim Secretary, Louisiana De-
partment of Health and Hospitals v. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al., 
also on certiorari to the same court.