Skip to main content

No. 18-1323October Term 2019Decided Jun 29, 2020

Docket 18-1323October Term 2019 (2019–2020)

June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo

At its core, this was a fight over whether Louisiana's abortion-doctor admitting-privileges law could stand after Whole Woman's Health.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Jun 29, 2020
Case Accepted
Arguments
Decision ReleasedJun 29, 2020
What it's about

This case concerned a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Abortion clinics and doctors argued that the law was effectively the same as a Texas law the Supreme Court had already struck down and that it placed an unconstitutional burden on access to abortion.

Question presented

Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with this Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit / Decision released Jun 29, 2020

Area

Decided Supreme Court case

Briefing

What it's about

This case asked whether Louisiana could enforce a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Supreme Court decided the case on June 29, 2020, in a dispute framed around whether that law conflicted with Whole Woman's Health, the earlier Texas case.

Vote

The case was argued on March 4, 2020, and decided on June 29, 2020. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

Impact

The case mattered to Louisiana clinics, doctors, and patients because admitting-privileges rules can determine whether doctors may keep providing abortions. If doctors cannot get those hospital privileges, access can shrink through clinic closures, longer travel, or delays.

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished this case. Any remaining steps would be for lower courts and Louisiana officials to carry out the Court's decision.

What was the main dispute in June Medical Services v. Russo?

The fight was over Louisiana's admitting-privileges requirement for abortion doctors. Clinics said it was effectively the same as the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health.

What were the real-world consequences of this law?

If doctors could not get nearby hospital privileges, some clinics could lose providers or close. Patients could face longer trips, added delays, and less access.

What happens procedurally now that the Supreme Court has decided the case?

The Supreme Court's review is over. The case goes back for any lower-court or state action needed to put the decision into effect.

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

At its core, this was a fight over whether Louisiana's abortion-doctor admitting-privileges law could stand after Whole Woman's Health.

Impact

The case mattered to Louisiana clinics, doctors, and patients because admitting-privileges rules can determine whether doctors may keep providing abortions. If doctors cannot get those hospital privileges, access can shrink through clinic closures, longer travel, or delays.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents