Jump to content

Chief justice casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rules against Louisiana abortion clinic law


Geee

Recommended Posts

scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-law-that-placed-restrictions-on-abortion-clinics

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that individuals who perform abortions at clinics have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital is unconstitutional, as it places an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, with Chief Justice John Roberts once again casting a deciding vote by siding with the court's liberal justices.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted that the Louisiana law is "almost word-for-word identical" to a Texas law the court ruled was unconstitutional in 2016's Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. A District Court had rejected the Louisiana law because of that precedent, but a court of appeals ruled otherwise.

"We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court’s findings of fact," Breyer wrote. "Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.":snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chief Justice Roberts finds another way for conservatives to lose

Paul Mirengoff

June 29, 2020

As expected, the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo. It struck down a Louisiana law that required abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital in order to perform abortions.

The vote was 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal majority. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion.

Four years ago, Roberts reached the opposite result in a Texas case in which the Court struck down a similar admitting-privileges law. Roberts was in the minority in that case.

In today’s case, Roberts wrote a concurring opinion explaining his flip. He relied on the doctrine of stare decisis which, he said, bound him to the result in the Texas case.

Stare decisis is an important doctrine. But should it bind a Justice to a ruling he thought was clearly wrong just four years ago? I don’t think so.

(Snip)

The good news is that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted with the conservative minority. But that provides very little consolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1713995943
×
×
  • Create New...