Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Chief Justice Roberts Could Determine Fate Of Abortion Law

“During yesterday’s oral argument in the CFPB case, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the Court’s ‘recent precedent should have a binding effect on how the Court addresses [that] case.’ If the Chief Justice follows his own counsel, he will vote to strike down Louisiana’s law.” — CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans, present for today’s proceedings, issued the following reaction:

Four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas admitting privileges requirement, finding that it was an arbitrary requirement that made it harder for individuals to obtain access to abortion and advanced no health interest. If the Court follows its own precedent it will strike down Louisiana’s law as a sham designed to hinder abortion access.

During this morning’s argument, no one offered any reason why the Court should depart from Whole Woman’s Health and uphold Louisiana’s identical law. Indeed, if anything, the answers to the Justices’ many questions about the record illustrated that Louisiana’s law imposes severe burdens—as Texas’s did—because of the difficulty of obtaining admitting privileges and providing no benefits of any kind. The law is an arbitrary infringement on fundamental rights that the Constitution does not countenance.

During yesterday’s oral argument in the CFPB case, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the Court’s “recent precedent should have a binding effect on how the Court addresses [that] case.” If the Chief Justice follows his own counsel, he will vote to strike down Louisiana’s law.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-gee/

“Justices to hear first major abortion case of Trump era,” The Hill (quoting David Gans), February 29. 2020: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/485246-justices-to-hear-first-major-abortion-case-of-trump-era

“Chief Justice John Roberts’ Next Move Will Tell Us A Lot,” Brianne Gorod and Rebecca Damante, Take Care blog, February 13, 2020: https://takecareblog.com/blog/chief-justice-john-roberts-next-move-will-tell-us-a-lot

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment.