Case: 18-1323 June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (2020-March-04)
CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-1460 AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Case: 18-1323
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), this Court held that a state law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an admitting privileges law in Louisiana that is identical to the one this Court struck down.
This presents the following issue:
Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with this Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health.
Case: 18-1460
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Can abortion providers be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sue on their own behalf?
Are objections to prudential standing waivable (per the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits) or non-waivable (per the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits)?
---
Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support
CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-1460 AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Case: 18-1323
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), this Court held that a state law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an admitting privileges law in Louisiana that is identical to the one this Court struck down.
This presents the following issue:
- Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with this Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health.
Case: 18-1460
QUESTION PRESENTED:
- Can abortion providers be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sue on their own behalf?
- Are objections to prudential standing waivable (per the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits) or non-waivable (per the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits)?
