Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

4 

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

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

with  subsequent  factual  and  legal  developments,  and  the 
reliance interests that the precedent has engendered.  See 
Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. 
___, ____–____ (2018) (slip op., at 34–35).
  Stare decisis principles also determine how we handle a 
decision that itself departed from the cases that came be-
fore it.  In those instances, “[r]emaining true to an ‘intrinsi-
cally  sounder’  doctrine  established  in  prior  cases  better 
serves the values of stare decisis than would following” the 
recent departure.  Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 
U. S.  200,  231  (1995)  (plurality  opinion).  Stare  decisis  is 
pragmatic and contextual, not “a mechanical formula of ad-
herence to the latest decision.”  Helvering v.  Hallock, 309 
U. S. 106, 119 (1940). 

II 
A 
Both Louisiana and the providers agree that the undue
burden  standard  announced  in  Casey  provides  the  appro-
priate framework to analyze Louisiana’s law.  Brief for Pe-
titioners in No. 18–1323, pp. 45–47; Brief for Respondent in
No. 18–1323, pp. 60–62.  Neither party has asked us to re-
assess the constitutional validity of that standard. 

Casey  reaffirmed  “the  most  central  principle  of  Roe  v. 
Wade,” “a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before 
viability.”  Casey, 505 U. S., at 871 (plurality opinion).1  At 
the same time, it recognized that the State has “important
and legitimate interests in . . . protecting the health of the
pregnant  woman and in protecting the potentiality of hu-
man  life.”  Id.,  at  875–876  (internal  quotation  marks  and 
brackets omitted). 

To  serve  the  former  interest,  the  State  may,  “[a]s  with 

—————— 

1 Although parts of Casey’s joint opinion were a plurality not joined by 
a majority of the Court, the joint opinion is nonetheless considered the 
holding of the Court under Marks v.  United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 
(1977), as the narrowest position supporting the judgment.