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
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.