Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

Fifth Circuit disagreed with the District Court, not so much in respect 
to the legal standards, but in respect to the factual findings on which 
the  District  Court  relied  in assessing  both  the  burdens  that  Act  620
imposes and the health-related benefits it might bring.

Under well-established legal standards, a district court’s findings of
fact “must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing 
court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the 
witnesses’ credibility.”  Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6).  When the dis-
trict court is “sitting without a jury,” the appellate court “is not to de-
cide factual issues de novo,” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 
573.  Provided “the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible
in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may
not  reverse  it  even  though  convinced  that  had  it  been  sitting  as  the 
trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.”  Id., at 
573–574.    Viewed  in  light  of  this  standard,  the  testimony  and  other 
evidence  contained  in  the  extensive  record  developed  over  the  6-day 
trial support the District Court’s conclusion on Act 620’s constitution-
ality.  Pp. 16–19.

(b) Taken together, the District Court’s findings and the evidence
underlying them are sufficient to support its conclusion that enforcing 
the  admitting-privileges  requirement  would  drastically  reduce  the 
number and geographic distribution of abortion providers, making it 
impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State
and imposing substantial obstacles on those who could.  Pp. 19–35. 

(1) The  evidence  supporting  the  court’s  findings  in  respect  to 
Act 620’s impact on abortion providers is stronger and more detailed 
than  that  in  Whole  Woman’s  Health.   The  District  Court  supervised 
Does 1, 2, 5, and 6 for more than 18 months as they tried, and largely
failed,  to  obtain  conforming  privileges  from  13  relevant  hospitals;  it
relied on a combination of direct evidence that some of the doctors’ ap-
plications were denied for reasons having nothing to do with their abil-
ity to perform abortions safely, and circumstantial evidence—includ-
ing hospital bylaws with requirements like those considered in Whole 
Woman’s Health and evidence that showed the role that opposition to
abortion plays in some hospitals’ decisions—that explained why other
applications were denied despite the doctors’ good-faith efforts.  Just 
as  in  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  that  evidence  supported  the  District 
Court’s factual finding that Louisiana’s admitting-privileges require-
ment  serves  no  “relevant  credentialing  function.”    579  U. S.,  at  ___. 
The Fifth Circuit's conclusion that Does 2, 5, and 6 acted in bad faith 
cannot be squared with the clear-error standard of review that applies 
to the District Court’s contrary findings.  Pp. 19–31. 

(2) The District Court also drew from the record evidence sev-