Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Abortion Ruling, While Welcome, In Reality Just “Supreme Court 101” 

WASHINGTON – On news that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, with Chief Justice Roberts, as the fifth vote, ruling that stare decisis commanded that the Louisiana anti-abortion access law had to be overruled, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling, while incredibly important, should not be surprising. In fact, this case should have been one of the easiest for the Court to dispose of this term. 

Just four years ago, the Court struck down a state statute virtually identical to the one at issue in this case, which unlawfully made it harder to access abortion clinics. The only thing that’s changed since that time is Justice Kavanaugh has replaced Justice Kennedy. Lower court judges in this case effectively ignored the Court’s ruling from just a few years ago, and it’s a shame that four other conservative Justices were willing to allow such brazen disregard of that earlier Supreme Court opinion.  

This was really just “Supreme Court 101” for all nine of the justices, but only five of them were prepared to show fidelity to law and precedent instead of politics, and not only strike down this Louisiana statute, but also send a message to lower courts to avoid pulling a stunt like this again.

#

Resources:

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

##

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.