Louisiana Abortion Law: Supreme Court's Verdict And Justices' Votes

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that restricted doctors from performing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in the decision, marking the first major abortion ruling since President Trump appointed two conservative justices to the bench. The ruling was a victory for abortion rights supporters and signaled that the more conservative court wasn't ready to overthrow precedent on the divisive issue.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Louisiana's abortion law

On June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The ruling, made in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, was the first major abortion decision since the addition of two Trump appointees to the court. The court ruled 5-4 that the Louisiana law created an ""undue burden" for patients seeking an abortion and was therefore unconstitutional.

The decision was a significant victory for abortion rights supporters and signaled that the more conservative court was not ready to overturn precedent on the divisive issue. The ruling also set a new precedent for who can challenge abortion restrictions, with the court deciding that providers could sue on behalf of patients.

The Supreme Court's ruling was guided by deference to prior rulings, particularly the court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a nearly identical Texas law. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had dissented in Hellerstedt, provided the crucial fifth vote in the Louisiana case, concurring with the judgment but not the reasoning of the opinion. Roberts wrote that he continues to believe Hellerstedt was incorrect but concurred on the basis of precedent, stating that Louisiana's law "imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law."

The majority opinion in the Louisiana case was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, who was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Breyer concluded that the law's burden on a woman's right to an abortion outweighed any medical benefit, citing evidence that abortion in Louisiana had been extremely safe and that there was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure.

The court's four more conservative justices, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, each filed separate dissenting opinions, arguing largely on the grounds that the challengers to the Louisiana law lacked a legal right to sue on behalf of their patients.

The Louisiana law, passed in 2014, had been seen as a test case for even further restrictions on abortion rights and was strongly opposed by abortion rights advocates, who feared it would chip away at abortion access. The ruling against the law signaled that a major upheaval of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision protecting abortion rights, was less likely to occur.

The impact of Chief Justice John Roberts' vote

Chief Justice John Roberts' vote was pivotal in the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Louisiana's abortion law. His vote was the deciding one in the 5-4 ruling, with Roberts joining the court's liberal justices. This decision marked a significant victory for abortion rights supporters and sent a strong signal to anti-abortion states.

Roberts' vote was particularly notable given his conservative leanings and his previous vote to uphold similar restrictions in Texas in 2016. In his separate concurring opinion, Roberts emphasised that he still believed the Texas case was wrongly decided. However, he ultimately voted against the Louisiana law, citing the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which prioritises adhering to precedent. This vote highlighted the importance Roberts placed on respecting previous rulings, even when they conflicted with his personal beliefs.

The Louisiana law, formally known as the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion site. The Supreme Court's ruling that this law imposed an ""undue burden" on women seeking abortions was a crucial moment in the ongoing battle for abortion rights. Roberts' vote played a pivotal role in this outcome, much to the disappointment of pro-life supporters.

While Roberts' vote in this case aligned with the liberal justices, his separate opinion revealed nuances in his thinking. He disagreed with the liberal justices' reasoning and maintained his conservative stance on abortion. This nuance in his opinion has led to speculation about the potential impact on future abortion-related cases. Some believe his vote may have long-term pro-life benefits, tipping the balance in favour of restrictive state laws.

The implications for abortion rights in the US

The US Supreme Court's decision to strike down Louisiana's abortion law has significant implications for abortion rights in the country. The ruling, made on June 29, 2020, was the first major abortion ruling for the high court under its new majority of members with records opposing abortion rights. The 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's liberal justices, reaffirmed abortion rights and set a precedent for future cases.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not require hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers, deeming it an undue burden for patients seeking abortions. This decision was based on a similar Texas law that the court struck down in 2016, setting a precedent for future cases. The ruling also allowed abortion providers to challenge abortion restrictions on behalf of their patients, which was a significant development in abortion rights litigation.

The Impact

The implications of this ruling are far-reaching. Firstly, it signals that the more conservative court is not willing to overturn established precedents on abortion rights, despite the addition of two Trump-appointed justices. This suggests that while the court may uphold some restrictions, it is unlikely to completely overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling also sets a precedent for challenging state laws that attempt to restrict abortion access, as seen in the similar Texas case.

The Political Context

The decision came just months before a heated presidential election, with abortion rights taking centre stage. The ruling motivated both abortion rights supporters and opponents to mobilize voters and highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court's composition in shaping abortion policy. It also reinforced the urgency of the 2020 election for those who support abortion rights as part of reproductive justice.

Future of Abortion Rights

While the ruling was a victory for abortion rights, the close vote underscored the fragility of these rights in the US. The court's conservative justices dissented, arguing that abortion providers should not be allowed to challenge restrictions. The presence of Trump's appointees, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, on the court has shifted the ideological balance, and future rulings on abortion rights will depend on how the justices interpret and adhere to precedents.

The role of precedent in the Supreme Court's decision

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down Louisiana's abortion law was largely influenced by the principle of adhering to precedent, particularly the court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. In that case, the Court struck down a nearly identical Texas law, finding that it imposed an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 ruling on the Louisiana law, wrote in his concurring opinion that his vote was guided by deference to prior rulings, specifically the Hellerstedt decision. He stated that the Louisiana law imposed a similar burden on access to abortion as the Texas law and, therefore, could not stand under existing precedents.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who penned the majority opinion in the Louisiana case, also emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent. He cited the Hellerstedt decision and applied its rationale to the Louisiana law, concluding that it imposed an undue burden on women's right to abortion and offered little to no medical benefit.

The Court's decision to strike down the Louisiana law set a precedent for who can challenge abortion restrictions. The Court ruled that abortion providers have legal standing to challenge restrictions on behalf of their patients, rejecting Louisiana's argument to the contrary. This ruling established a new precedent and expanded the ability of abortion providers to bring legal challenges against restrictive laws.

While the Court's decision in the Louisiana case was influenced by precedent, it is important to note that the Court has not always strictly adhered to its previous rulings on abortion. For example, in 2016, Chief Justice Roberts dissented from the majority opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, demonstrating his disagreement with that ruling. Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, indicating a willingness to depart from established precedent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision on Louisiana's abortion law demonstrated the important role of precedent in shaping the Court's rulings. By relying on the Hellerstedt decision and establishing new precedents, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to abortion rights and set a framework for future abortion-related cases.

The response from anti-abortion groups

Louisiana's Attorney General, Jeff Landry, argued that the law was intended to protect women's health and safety, and that the ruling continued a heartbreaking line of decisions that places 'access' to abortion above the health and safety of women and girls. Louisiana Right to Life Associate Director Angie Thomas echoed this sentiment, stating that the law was introduced to protect the health and safety of women at for-profit abortion businesses.

The ruling was also seen as a missed opportunity to overturn or weaken the Roe v. Wade decision, with anti-abortion strategists having worked for decades to severely restrict access to abortion services. The decision to strike down the Louisiana law indicated that a major upheaval of Roe v. Wade was less likely to occur, which was a blow to anti-abortion groups.

Frequently asked questions