Opinion Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Restrictions
The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact
Louisiana is also questioning third-party standing in June Medical Services v. Russo, an abortion case with the Supreme Court. June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.
In perhaps the most consequential decision on abortion rights handed down since 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court hasa Louisiana law imposing licensing restrictions on abortion clinics unconstitutional, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the Court’s four traditionally pro-choice Justices.
June Medical Services v. Russo was universallyas the best opportunity anti-abortion advocates had to give a green light to states that sought to shut down clinics via Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws purported (disingenuously) to protect the health of women seeking abortions. What stood directly in the way, however, was the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in , in which it struck down a virtually identical Texas law. But the Court was configured differently four years ago. Since that 5-3 decision — the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death had not yet been filled — one of the majority in the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, retired, and two new Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were nominated by Donald Trump, who has to use his appointments to end abortion rights. So by simple arithmetic, it seemed like the Court would reverse or somehow distinguish Hellerstedt, so long as it could overcome the embarrassment of changing directions so quickly on the hottest constitutional issue of all.
John Yoo: Supreme Court swing vote – What's behind John Roberts' legal gymnastics?
By a 5-4 vote, a fractured Supreme Court Monday struck down Louisiana’s effort to regulate abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with four liberal justices that the state law imposed a “substantial burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. © Provided by FOX News Fox News chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream breaks down the ruling on 'America's Newsroom.
But Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t bring himself to do that. In a concurring opinion (the majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who also wrote the opinion in Hellerstedt), Roberts, who dissented in Hellerstedt on procedural grounds, reiterated his position that the earlier case was wrongly decided, but insisted the Court was bound by precedent to respect it since the two laws in question in the two cases were virtually identical:
The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.
Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit
The Supreme Court followed scientific research and evidence when it came to abortion in Louisiana. All courts and lawmakers should do the same.With this victory, though, we must remember that there still exist abortion restrictions rooted not in evidence but rather in ideology. These laws create deep inequities in our health care system that we must address to achieve real justice for people across the United States.
The four conservatives dissenting in this case were all but seething in their contempt for the simplicity of Roberts’s decision. Only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, long the Justice most openly hostile towards reproductive rights, attacked the precedents going back to Roe v. Wade. The central dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, mostly claimed the law didn’t really impose an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions, the standard set out in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the main precedent on abortion rights. In separate dissents, Neil Gorsuch emphasized the need to defer to state judgments about the benefits of TRAP laws, while Brett Kavanaugh accused the majority of failing to let the lower courts make factual determinations of the impact of the Louisiana law. All four dissenters claimed the clinics who challenged this law did not have standing to represent the women involved.
BiP’s Hannah and Dylan Celebrate 1-Year Engagement Anniversary
A trip around the sun! Bachelor in Paradise alums Hannah Godwin and Dylan Barbour celebrated one year since he proposed on the beach in Sayulita, Mexico. “What a whirlwind,” the Alabama native, 25, wrote via Instagram on Saturday, June 27. “Thanks for the most epic year of my life @dylanbarbour. I never knew I could be so happy, to many more!” Over on his Instagram account, the San Diego native, 26, quipped, “Happy 1 year anniversary to me telling you how f’d you are for agreeing to marry me.” Several members of Bachelor Nation took to the comments section of the couple’s posts to join them in celebrating the milestone. Barbour’s ex Hannah Brown wrote, “Wow well isn’t this the cutest, sweetest, most adorable thing I’ve seen in a hot minute?! I love the love!! So happy for y’all!” Dean Unglert, who also found love in Paradise with Caelynn Miller-Keyes, jokingly commented, “Cutest couple to ever come out of bip. no question.” Godwin and Barbour fell in love on season 6 of the ABC summer reality series. The model was initially interested in Blake Horstmann before choosing to pursue a relationship with the tech entrepreneur. Barbour ultimately got down on bended knee during the season finale, which aired in September 2019. The future bride and groom celebrated their engagement with family and friends in February at a surprise party in California.
Perhaps because Roberts’s key vote was so clearly compelled by the nearly identical nature of the laws in question in the two SCOTUS cases, this decision could theoretically keep open the feasibility of some other kind of TRAP laws in the future. But it’s unlikely that Republican state legislatures can get another, stronger case before SCOTUS quickly enough to mitigate the impact of two consecutive decisions blocking TRAP laws. And if Roberts is unwilling to reverse Hellerstedt, he certainly cannot be expected to go further down the road to the reversal of Casey and Roe that the anti-abortion movement wants, and that nearly all Republican politicians in Washington and around the country support.
In the short term, June Medical Services will create fresh howls of outrage among conservatives at the perfidy of John Roberts, who in earlier 5-4 decisionsand struck down a for the 2020 census. Roberts was also an accomplice of Neil Gorsuch (who wrote the majority opinion) in the Court’s two weeks ago ruling that LGBTQ rights are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And though there are several other big decisions pending at the very end of this Supreme Court term, it is shaping up as a huge disappointment to those whose support for Donald Trump in 2016 heavily depended on his promises to reshape the Court and constitutional law.
You can be sure Trump will tout this and similar decisions as proof he needs a second term to consummate the counter-revolution conservatives have long planned, with abortion rights remaining the first and principal target. But if Biden wins in November, the odds of Supreme Court approval of abortion restrictions any time soon may have just receded over the horizon.
Women Are Being Written Out of Abortion Jurisprudence .
The six opinions filed in June Medical were all authored by men.In the interests of being perfectly clear, I herein lay my cards on the table: I’m not a huge fan of this kind of essentializing and almost four years ago to the day I did a little touchdown dance when the opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt, the Texas abortion ruling with facts virtually identical to those from this year’s, was assigned to Justice Stephen Breyer.