June Medical Services v. Russo
Center Argues Major Abortion Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court

The Center for Reproductive Rights presented oral arguments on March 4, 2020, before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could shape the future of abortion rights across the country.
In June Medical v. Russo, the Center is representing abortion providers in challenging a Louisiana abortion restriction (Act 620) that is identical to a Texas law struck down by the Supreme Court in the Center’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case in 2016.
“The arguments made clear that we are refighting a legal issue that we have already won.”
“The arguments made clear that we are refighting a legal issue that we have already won,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center, following the oral arguments, “and we’re refighting that legal issue because Louisiana is in open defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Whole Woman’s Health case.”
The Louisiana law, like the Texas law, prevents doctors from providing abortion services unless they have admitting privileges at a local hospital. These types of requirements are opposed by medical experts, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists because they are medically unnecessary.
In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court found that admitting privilege requirements were medically unnecessary and placed an “undue burden” on the right to abortion.
Julie Rikelman, the Center’s Senior Litigation Director, made the Center’s case before the full Court, arguing that Act 620 should likewise be ruled unconstitutional since nothing has changed in four years to justify a different outcome.
When questioned, “Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?” Rikelman answered, “No, your Honor. The medical consensus against these laws is clear.”
“These laws will always put barriers to abortion while serving no health and safety benefits.”
Later, she told the Court: “AMA and ACOG are clear that these laws have no medical benefits whatsoever and only impose barriers to abortion. And that is true in every state, regardless of the state circumstances. These laws will always put barriers to abortion while serving no health and safety benefits.”
On the other side of the balance, Rikelman argued, “the district court found that this law would be extremely burdensome, more so than the Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health.” For example, Rikelman explained to the Court, just “one of the practical real-world impacts, if this law were to take effect, is that women in the Baton Rouge area would now have to travel 320 miles back and forth to New Orleans.”
She also argued against Louisiana’s claim that abortion providers and clinics lack legal standing to bring court challenges and fight for their patients’ rights in court, explaining that the state’s position contradicts 40 years of Supreme Court precedent in abortion cases. In addition to Rikelman, Travis J. Tu, Senior Counsel, U.S. Litigation, is lead counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Co-counsel on the case is O’Melveny & Myers LLP.

While the Supreme Court heard arguments, thousands of supporters gathered outside the courthouse at the #MyRightMyDecision Rally in support of abortion rights and access. Click here for coverage of the rally.
“Once again,” Northup told the rally crowd, “the Court must step in to block these clinic shutdown laws and ensure that the promise of Roe v. Wade is realized for all women.”
“Once again,” Northup told the rally crowd, “the Court must step in to block these clinic shutdown laws and ensure that the promise of Roe v. Wade is realized for all women.”
On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s law was unconstitutional in a 5-4 plurality. Read about the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo here.
Click here for a transcript of today’s oral arguments.
Click here to listen to the audio recording of oral arguments.
Click here for more information on June Medical Services v. Russo.