Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 91

10 

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

ALITO, J., dissenting 

number and location of abortion clinics and physicians, the
geography of the State, the distribution of the population,
and the ability of physicians to obtain admitting privileges. 
Id.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  24–26).    There  is no  reason  to 
think that a law requiring admitting privileges will neces-
sarily have the same effect in every state.  As a result, just 
because  the  Texas  admitting  privileges  requirement  was 
found by this Court, based on evidence in the record of that
case,  to  have  substantially  reduced  access  to  abortion  in
that State, it does not follow that Act 620 would have com-
parable effects in Louisiana.  See id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
22–26) (reviewing Texas record).  The two States are neigh-
bors, but they are not the same.  Accordingly, the record-
based empirical determination in Whole Woman’s Health is 
not controlling here.

The suggestion that Whole Woman’s Health is materially
identical to this case is ironic, since the two cases differ in 
a  way  that  was  critical  to  the  Court’s  reasoning  in  Whole 
Woman’s Health, i.e., the difference between a pre-enforcement 
facial challenge and a post-enforcement challenge based on 
evidence of the law’s effects.  See id., at ___ (slip op., at 11). 
Before  the  Texas  law  went  into  effect,  abortion  providers
mounted an unsuccessful facial challenge, arguing that the
law would drastically limit abortion access.  The Fifth Cir-
cuit  held  that  the  plaintiffs  had  not  shown  that  the  law
would  create  a  substantial  obstacle  for  women  seeking 
abortions, and a final judgment was entered against them. 
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. 
v. Abbott, 748 F. 3d 583, 590, 605 (2014).  Then, after the 
law had been in operation for some time, many of the same
plaintiffs filed a second suit and again argued that the ad-
mitting  privileges  requirement  violated  Casey.  Whole 
Woman’s Health v. Cole, 790 F. 3d 563, 577, and n. 14 (CA5 
2015).  The State defendants sought dismissal based on the 
doctrine of claim preclusion, but the Whole Woman’s Health 
majority rejected that argument.  579 U. S., at ___ (slip op.,