Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 71

10 

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

1 
Contrary  to  the  plurality’s  assertion  otherwise,  ante,  at 
16,  abortionists’  standing  to  assert  the  putative  rights  of 
their clients has not been settled by our precedents.  It is 
true  that  this  Court  has  reflexively  allowed  abortionists 
and abortion clinics to vicariously assert a woman’s puta-
tive right to abortion.  But oftentimes the Court has not so 
much as addressed standing in those cases.  See, e.g., Whole 
Woman’s  Health  v.  Hellerstedt,  579  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2016); 
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124 (2007); Ayotte v. Planned 
Parenthood  of  Northern  New  Eng.,  546  U. S.  320  (2006); 
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914 (2000); Mazurek v. Arm-
strong,  520  U. S.  968  (1997)  (per  curiam);  Planned 
Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,  505  U. S.  833 
(1992).  And questions “merely lurk[ing] in the record, nei-
ther brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon,”
are not “considered as having been so decided as to consti-
tute precedents.”  Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507, 511 (1925); 
see also Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 
440 U. S. 173, 183 (1979).  Specifically, when it comes “to 
our  own  judicial  power  or  jurisdiction,  this  Court  has  fol-
lowed the lead of Chief Justice Marshall who held that this 
Court  is  not  bound  by  a  prior  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  a
case where it was not questioned and it was passed sub si-
lentio.”  United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 
U. S. 33, 38 (1952) (citing United States v. More, 3 Cranch 
159 (1805) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court)).

The first—and only—time the Court squarely addressed 
this question with a reasoned decision was in Singleton v. 
Wulff, 428 U. S. 106 (1976).3  In that case, a fractured Court 

—————— 

3 Although the Court concluded that the abortionists had standing to 
challenge the constitutionality of abortion regulations in Doe v. Bolton, 
410 U. S. 179 (1973), it did so only in dicta, id., at 188–189.  The abor-
tionists’ coplaintiffs were pregnant women whom the Court determined 
had standing to assert their own rights, and thus whether the abortion-
ists had standing was “a matter of no great consequence.”  Id., at 188.