Civil and Human Rights

Victory: Abortion Clinic Shutdown Laws Struck Down

Washington, DC – On news this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – striking down Texas’ abortion clinic shutdown laws as unconstitutional – Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

 

“Justice Breyer’s majority opinion powerfully demonstrates the true purpose and onerous burden that laws like these in Texas would have placed on the right of women to access abortion – a liberty protected by the Constitution and the Court’s precedents. In setting aside such clinic shutdown laws, Breyer correctly wrote for the Court, ‘[T]he challenged provisions close most of the abortion facilities in Texas’ and  ‘vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women’s health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny.’  

 

“It is also interesting to note” Wydra continued, “as we anticipated in our brief, that Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg found common ground in joining today’s majority opinion. As the Court’s leading thinkers on issues of access to abortion services, their approach to questions of individual liberty and equality clearly weighed heavily against regulations like the Texas laws struck down today.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC “friend of the court” brief in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/whole-woman%E2%80%99s-health-v-hellerstedt-us-sup-ct 

 

“The Supreme Court’s Choice on Abortion,” David H. Gans, The New Republic, March 2, 2016: https://newrepublic.com/article/131009/supreme-courts-choice-abortion 

 

“Faulty Federalism, Texas Edition: How Texas Hopes to Gut the Right to Abortion,” David H. Gans, Balkinization, February 29, 2016: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/faulty-federalism-texas-edition-how.html 

 

##

 

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

 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...