Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

10 

FDA v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND 
GYNECOLOGISTS 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the  reasons  discussed  above,  these  procedures  are  not 
equivalent.    Reading  the  Government’s  statistically  insig-
nificant,  cherry-picked  data  is  no  more  informative  than 
reading tea leaves. 
  Together,  patients’  health  vulnerabilities,  public  trans-
portation risks, susceptible older family members at home, 
and  clinic  closures  and  reduced  services  pose  substantial, 
sometimes  insurmountable,  obstacles  for  women  seeking 
medication abortions during the COVID–19 pandemic.  See 
June Medical, 591 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) (slip 
op., at 31–35); id., at ___–___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in 
judgment) (slip op., at 11–16); Hellerstedt, 579 U. S., at ___–
___ (slip op., at 34–36).  Under these conditions, the in-per-
son requirements for mifepristone impose an unjustifiable 
and undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to an 
abortion. 

B 
  The  District  Court  was  therefore  correct  on  the  merits.  
But even if it were not, the Government has not shown that 
it  will  suffer  any  irreparable  harm  absent  a  stay  of  that 
court’s injunction.  The Government argues that all injunc-
tions  against  a  government  inherently  cause  irreparable 
harm, especially for agencies charged with protecting pub-
lic  health,  and  that  courts  should  look  no  further.    This 
Court’s  precedent  does  not  support  such  a  sweeping  rule.  
See,  e.g.,  Williams,  442  U. S.,  at  1312–1314  (considering 
whether a state public health agency had shown irrepara-
ble  harm  from  an  injunction  requiring  the  State  to  fund 
medically necessary abortions).   
  The Government points to no meaningful concrete harms.  
It  argues  only  that  the  in-person  requirements  mitigate 
health risks from mifepristone “by allowing patients to re-
ceive in-person counseling about possible complications and 
by avoiding potential delays associated with patients trying