SCOTUS Overturns Louisiana Anti-Abortion Law; Kramer Levin Provided Brief Challenging the Law

On June 29, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law restricting abortions that the law was nearly identical to a Texas law that the justices invalidated in 2016. Kramer Levin filed an amicus brief in support of this important victory.

The decision, June Medical v. Russo, is the Supreme Court’s first major abortion ruling since Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016, in which the Supreme Court held a Texas statute requiring doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and clinics placed an undue burden on the ability of women to obtain pre-viability abortions. In June Medical, the Supreme Court held that a nearly identical Louisiana law similarly placed an undue burden on women’s access to abortion and was invalid. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, delivered a plurality opinion. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. The plurality makes clear that under Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey courts must weigh the burdens a law imposes on abortion access against the medical benefits the law confers. The Court found the evidence supporting the district court’s factual findings that Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement serves no relevant function was even stronger and more detailed than in Whole Woman’s Health. Critically, a majority of the court, with the Chief Justice joining the plurality, confirmed that abortion providers have third-party standing to assert the constitutional rights of their patients.

Kramer Levin filed an amicus brief on behalf of eleven women who chose to have an abortion. Because some members of the Supreme Court may believe they have never met anyone who has had or needed an abortion, our clients came forward to share their personal stories. Their stories demonstrate the enormous burden that limited access to abortion imposes, the obstacles to pursuing litigation that individual women face, and the reasons why abortion providers should continue to have standing to assert the constitutional right to abortion.  

The brief urging the Supreme Court to reject Louisiana’s admitting privileges law and arguments against standing was prepared by litigation partner Michael J. Dell, associates Aaron L. Webman and Irene Weintraub, and former associate Evie Spanos.