Russo v. June Medical Services, LLC

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 4 Oct 2019

1. Can abortion providers be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sue on their own behalf?
2. Are objections to prudential standing waivable (per the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits) or non-waivable (per the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits)?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The Supreme Court ruled that the law imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions, thus violating their constitutional rights as established in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision was closely aligned with the precedent set by Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, where a similar Texas law was struck down for imposing substantial obstacles without providing significant health benefits.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Samuel Alito authored one of the dissenting opinions, arguing that the majority failed to properly apply legal standards regarding standing and res judicata principles since June Medical Services did not adequately demonstrate how they were directly harmed by the statute or why it should be invalidated based on past rulings alone. He contended that states should have more leeway in regulating medical practices related to abortion if there is any potential benefit for patient safety, even if such regulations might indirectly affect access.