Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

11 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

. . . the fact that one clinic would have to close is not a sub-
stantial burden that can currently be attributed to Act 620
as  distinguished  from  Doe  5’s  failure  to  put  forth  a  good
faith  effort.”  Ibid.   The  Court  of  Appeals  added  that  the 
additional work that Doe 2 and Doe 3 would have to do to 
compensate for Doe 1’s inability to perform abortions “does
not  begin  to  approach  the  capacity  problem  in”  Whole 
Woman’s Health.  905 F. 3d, at 812.  It estimated that Act 
620 would “resul[t] in a potential increase” in waiting times
“of 54 minutes at one of the state’s clinics for at most 30% 
of women.”  Id., at 815. 

On  the  basis  of  these  findings,  the  panel  majority  con-
cluded  that  Louisiana’s  admitting-privileges  requirement
would impose no “substantial burden at all” on Louisiana 
women seeking an abortion, “much less a substantial bur-
den on a large fraction of women as is required to sustain a
facial challenge.”  Ibid.  Judge Higginbotham dissented.

The Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ petition for en
banc  rehearing  over  dissents  by  Judges  Dennis  and  Hig-
ginson, joined by four of their colleagues.  See June Medical 
Services, L. L. C. v. Gee, 913 F. 3d 573 (2019) (per curiam).
The plaintiffs then asked this Court to stay the Fifth Cir-
cuit’s judgment.  We granted their application, thereby al-
lowing  the  District  Court’s  injunction  to  remain  in  effect. 
June Medical Services, L. L. C. v. Gee, 586 U. S. ___ (2019). 
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for certiorari ad-
dressing  the  merits  of  the  appeals  court’s  decision.    The 
State  filed  a  cross-petition,  challenging  the  plaintiffs’  au-
thority to maintain this action.  We granted both petitions. 

II 

We  initially  consider  a  procedural  argument  that  the 
State raised for the first time in its cross-petition for certi-
orari.  As we have explained, the plaintiff abortion provid-
ers and clinics in this case have challenged Act 620 on the 
ground that it infringes their patients’ rights to access an