Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 104.0

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

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

1311.  A few weeks later, June Medical’s counsel informed 
the District Court by letter that Doe 6 had complied with 
East Jefferson’s request for additional information, id., at 
54,  but  the  record  says  nothing  about  any  later  develop-
ments.  Presumably,  East  Jefferson  did  not  grant  privi-
leges, but the record does not disclose why.  Did Doe 6 pro-
vide all the information that the hospital requested and do 
everything  else  required  by  the  application  process?    The 
record is silent, and the District Court was incurious. 

Doe 3.  Doe 3, who performs abortions at the June Medi-
cal  clinic  in  Shreveport,  would  not  be  directly  affected  by 
Act 620 because he maintains privileges at two area hospi-
tals,  Christus  Health  and  WKBC,  but  he  stated  that  he 
would stop performing abortions if, as a result of that law,
he was left as the only abortion doctor in the northern part
of the State.  Id., at 236.  Thus, if Doe 1 or Doe 2 got privi-
leges and continued to perform abortions, Doe 3, according
to his testimony, would remain as well.12 

Putting  all  this  together,  it  is  apparent  that  the  record 
does not come close to showing that Doe 2, Doe 5, and Doe
6 made the sort of effort that one would expect if their abil-
ity to continue performing abortions had depended on suc-
cess.  These doctors had an incentive to do the bare mini-
mum that they thought the judge would demand—and as it 
turned  out,  the  judge  did  not  demand  much,  not  even  an 
appearance in his courtroom.  In short, the record does not 
show that Act 620 would drive any of these doctors out of 
abortion practice, and therefore the Act would not lead Doe 

—————— 

12 The plurality suggests that, if Doe 3 were to leave abortion practice, 
it would be attributable to Act 620.  But even the most ardent opponents
of Act 620 did not contemplate that the law would prompt abortion doc-
tors who satisfied the law’s requirements to quit.  Record 11231–11234, 
11291.  And if this outcome was not foreseeable at the time of enactment, 
it is hard to see how the District Court could blame Act 620 for causing 
Doe 3 to leave abortion practice.  Cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts §440, 
§442A (1964).