Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 121

6 

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

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

“factual situation before it,” New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 
747,  768  (1982),  while  “questions  of  wide  public  signifi-
cance”  remain  with  “governmental  institutions  . . .  more 
competent to address” them, Warth, 422 U. S., at 500. 

No one even attempts to suggest this usual prerequisite 
is satisfied here.  The plaintiffs before us are abortion pro-
viders.  They do not claim a constitutional right to perform 
that procedure, and no one on the Court contends they hold 
such a right.  Instead, the abortion providers before us seek 
only to assert the constitutional rights of an undefined, un-
named,  indeed  unknown,  group  of  women  who  they  hope 
will be their patients in the future. 

In  narrow  circumstances,  to  be  sure,  this  Court  has  al-
lowed cases to proceed based on “third-party standing.”  But 
to qualify, the plaintiff must demonstrate both that he has 
a  “ ‘close’  relationship”  with  the  person  whose  rights  he 
wishes to assert and that some “ ‘hindrance’ ” hampers the
right-holder’s  “ability  to  protect  his  own  interests.”    Kow-
alski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 130 (2004).  Think of parents
and children, guardians and wards.  In these special cases,
the logic goes, the plaintiff ’s interests are so aligned with
those of a particular right-holder that the litigation will pro-
ceed  in  much  the  same  way  as  if  the  right-holder  herself 
were present.

Nothing like that exists here.  In the first place, the plain-
tiff abortion providers identify no reason to think affected 
women are unable to assert their own rights if they wish. 
Instead,  the  plaintiffs  merely  gesture  to  a  1976  plurality 
opinion  suggesting  that  women  seeking  abortions  “gener-
ally” face a hindrance in asserting their own rights.  Single-
ton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 118 (1976).  But whatever the 
supposition of a 1976 plurality, in the years since interested
women have challenged abortion regulations on their own
behalf in case after case.  See, e.g., McCormack v. Herzog, 
788 F. 3d 1017 (CA9 2015); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F. 3d 
1112 (CA10 1996); Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F. 2d 994