Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., con-
curring) (slip op., at 8).  And the purported substantive due
process right to abort an unborn child is no exception—it is 
an individual right that is inherently personal.  After all, 
the  Court  “creat[ed  the]  right”  based  on  the  notion  that 
abortion  “ ‘ involv[es]  the  most  intimate  and  personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to
personal dignity and autonomy.’ ”  Whole Women’s Health, 
579  U. S.,  at  ___  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  5) 
(quoting Casey, 505 U. S., at 851 (majority opinion)).  Be-
cause this right belongs to the woman making that choice,
not to those who provide abortions, plaintiffs cannot estab-
lish a personal legal injury by asserting that this right has 
been violated.5 

The only injury asserted by plaintiffs in this suit is the
possibility  of  facing  criminal  sanctions  if  the  abortionists
conduct abortions without admitting privileges in violation 
of the law.  See Response and Reply for Petitioners (No. 18–
1460)/Cross-Respondents (No. 18–1323), p. 34.  But plain-
tiffs do not claim any right to provide abortions, nor do they 
contest that the State has authority to regulate such proce-
dures.6  They have therefore demonstrated only real-world 
damages  (or  more  accurately,  the  possibility  of  real-world 
damages), but no legal injury, or “invasion of a legally pro-
tected interest,” that belongs to them.  Spokeo, supra, at ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  7)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Thus, 
under a proper understanding of Article III, plaintiffs lack 
—————— 

5 Notably, plaintiffs point to no evidence in the record of women who
seek abortions in Louisiana actually opposing this law on the ground that
it violates their constitutional rights. 

6 Although plaintiffs initially argued that Louisiana’s law also violated
their procedural due process rights by requiring them to obtain admit-
ting  privileges  in  an  unreasonably  short  time,  App.  24,  28,  they  have
since abandoned that claim.  And even if they had asserted violations of 
their own rights before this Court, those legal injuries would be insuffi-
cient to establish standing for a distinct claim based on their clients’ pu-
tative rights.  See supra, at 12.