Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 129.0

14 

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

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

change, the law cannot pretend nothing has happened.  For 
that reason, we have instructed lower courts to reconsider 
injunctions “when the party seeking relief . . . can show a 
significant  change  either  in  factual  conditions  or  in  law.” 
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 215 (1997) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  And, given the fact-intensive nature 
of today’s analysis, the relief directed might well need to be
reconsidered below if, for example, hospitals start offering 
qualifying  admitting  privileges  to  abortion  providers,  a
handful of abortion providers relocate from other States, or 
even a tiny fraction of Louisiana’s existing OB/GYNs decide
to begin performing abortions.  Given the post-trial devel-
opments Louisiana has already identified but no court has 
yet considered, there’s every reason to think the factual con-
text here is prone to significant changes. 

* 
Another  background  rule,  another  exception.   When  it 
comes to the factual record, litigants normally start the case
on a clean slate.  While a previous case’s legal rules can cre-
ate precedent binding in the current dispute, earlier “fact-
bound” decisions typically “provide only minimal help when 
other courts consider” later cases with different factual “cir-
cumstances.”  Buford v. United States, 532 U. S. 59, 65–66 
(2001).  We’ve long recognized that this arrangement is re-
quired by due process—because while the law binds every-
one equally, parties are normally entitled to the chance to 
present  evidence  about  their  own  unique  factual  circum-
stances.  See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. Univer-
sity of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 329 (1971).

No  hint  of  these  rules  can  be  found  in  today’s  decision. 
From beginning to end, the plurality treats Whole Woman’s 
Health’s  fact-laden  predictions  about  how  a  Texas  law 
would  impact  the  availability  of  abortion  in  that  State  in
2016 as if they obviously and necessarily applied to Louisi-
ana  in  2020.  Most  notably,  the  plurality  cites  Whole