--- title: "June Medical Services v. Russo" description: "The Louisiana admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional. Because the law was substantively identical to the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), stare decisis requires the same result." type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "2020-06-29" citation: "591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020)" docket: "18-1323" status: "Superseded by Dobbs" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/june-medical-services-v-russo-2020.html" --- # June Medical Services v. Russo _Full caption: June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo_ **Citation:** 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) · **Docket No.** 18-1323 **Status:** Superseded by Dobbs | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | March 4, 2020 | | Decided | June 29, 2020 | | Vote | 5-4 to strike down Louisiana's admitting-privileges law (Roberts concurring in judgment only) | | Majority author | Breyer, J. (plurality) | | Joined by | Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ. | ## Question presented Whether Louisiana Act 620, requiring abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion; whether abortion providers had third-party standing to challenge the law on behalf of their patients. ## Holding The Louisiana admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional. Because the law was substantively identical to the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), stare decisis requires the same result. ## Reasoning Justice Breyer's plurality applied Hellerstedt's benefits-and-burdens balancing test. Chief Justice Roberts, concurring only in judgment, explicitly rejected that balancing test but applied Casey's 'substantial obstacle' inquiry and found the Louisiana law was 'nearly identical' to the Texas law, so stare decisis controlled. Under Marks v. United States, Roberts's narrower concurrence is the controlling opinion. ## Opinions ### Majority — Breyer, J. (plurality) _Joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ._ The Louisiana admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional. Because the law was substantively identical to the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), stare decisis requires the same result. ### Concurrence — Roberts, C.J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred in judgment only. Explicitly rejected Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt's benefits-burdens balancing test in favor of a pure 'substantial obstacle' inquiry. Applied stare decisis to strike down a Louisiana law essentially identical to the Texas law struck down in Hellerstedt. Because Roberts's concurrence is the narrowest ground, it becomes controlling under Marks v. United States. ### Dissent — Thomas, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Would overrule Roe and Casey entirely. ### Dissent — Alito, J. _Joined by Gorsuch, J.; Kavanaugh, J. (in part); Thomas, J. (in part)_ Argued the abortion providers lacked standing to litigate the rights of pregnant women. ### Dissent — Gorsuch, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Additional dissent. ### Dissent — Kavanaugh, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Would have remanded for further factfinding on whether the Louisiana law imposed a substantial burden. ## Key quotes > "Louisiana's law poses a 'substantial obstacle' to women seeking an abortion; the law offers no significant health-related benefits; and the law consequently imposes an 'undue burden' on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion." > — Breyer, J. (plurality) · slip op. at 40 > "I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case." > — Roberts, C.J. (concurring in judgment) · concurrence at 1-2 ## Practical effect The Louisiana admitting-privileges law was struck down, but Roberts's concurrence effectively narrowed the Hellerstedt framework going forward. In practice, the case signaled that a swing Justice (Roberts) was open to upholding TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws that did not create identical burdens. ## Perspectives The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case. ### Abolitionist framing Abolitionists noted Roberts's willingness to preserve Casey via stare decisis as evidence that even conservative Justices would not overrule Roe absent a proper vehicle — arguing this shows the incrementalist approach had reached its limits. ### Mainstream pro-life framing Mainstream pro-life groups were disappointed with the outcome but noted Roberts's narrowing of Hellerstedt as strategically important for future TRAP legislation. ### Pro-choice framing Advocates viewed the ruling as a partial victory that preserved Louisiana's provider network but warned that Roberts's concurrence weakened the undue burden test. ## Significance Legally significant for narrowing Hellerstedt's balancing test via the Marks doctrine, but largely superseded by Dobbs two years later. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 5 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 5 | | Practical impact on access | 6 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 4 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 3 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/18-1323](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/18-1323/) ### Secondary sources - [scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-j…](https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-june-medical-services-v-russo-when-a-win-is-not-a-win/) ## Related cases **Cites earlier cases:** - [Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)](whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.md) - [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md) - Marks v. United States (1977) **Cited by later cases:** - [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)](dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md) ## Notes The 'Roberts concurrence controls' analysis under Marks is doctrinally important beyond the abortion context.