Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

Ruling’s Impact on the Undue Burden Standard

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Case Contents

  • Overview
  • Decision
  • Analysis
  • The Case in Depth
  • March 4 Argument
  • Rally Recap
  • Amicus briefs
  • Abortion in Louisiana
  • Media
  • Partners

Share this page

Donate Now

Join Now

June Medical Services v. Russo

Ruling’s Impact on the Undue Burden Standard

Share this page

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id

New Center Report Examines Impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Abortion Ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo

The “undue burden” legal standard protecting abortion rights remains unchanged—for now.

A new report issued by the Center for Reproductive Rights analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, a leading abortion case brought and won by the Center and decided in June 2020.

The report, titled “The Undue Burden Standard After June Medical Services v. Russo,” examines the ruling’s impact on the legal standard that has been used by courts for decades to determine the constitutionality of abortion laws.

In June Medical Services, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana abortion restriction that would have led to the closing of two of the state’s three remaining clinics that provide abortion care. The law was identical to a Texas law the Court ruled unconstitutional in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH)—a case won by the Center in 2016.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the June Medical Services plurality opinion, joined by three other justices, affirming the Court’s strong legal standard from Whole Woman’s Health and reiterating that courts must “weigh the law’s asserted benefits against the burdens.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the plurality in declaring the law unconstitutional—but he wrote his own concurrence that disagreed with the legal standard the plurality had affirmed.

“Only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent,” says the report, concluding that June Medical Services “narrowly preserved the balancing test that powerfully rejects laws that impose burdens that outweigh benefits, at least for now.”

The Center’s new report addresses questions about the impact of the decision through an in-depth analysis of Justice Breyer’s opinion, Chief Justice Roberts’s concurrence, and past Supreme Court abortion rulings that have applied the undue burden standard.

The United States Supreme Court

The Undue Burden Test: Burdens and Benefits

Adopted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, the undue burden test is the legal standard that courts use to determine whether an abortion restriction violates the Constitution. In Casey, the Court held that an abortion restriction is unconstitutional if it imposes burdens that outweigh its benefits.

In 2016, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court affirmed that the undue burden legal standard requires that “courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.” In other words, unless benefits outweigh burdens, the law is unconstitutional. The decision also “reaffirmed that real-world impacts of abortion restrictions—particularly on marginalized communities—matter in the undue burden analysis.”

In June Medical Services in 2020, the plurality decision written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor reaffirmed the holding from Whole Woman’s Health that courts must “consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.”

The Roberts concurrence does not change the “undue burden” standard.

Much attention has been given to Chief Justice Roberts’s vote and concurrence in June Medical Services. First, he voted with the majority to declare the Louisiana law unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts cited “stare decisis”—the legal principle that tells courts to decide similar cases the same way—for his reasoning in June Medical Services. Besides citing precedent, the Chief Justice agreed with the plurality on several key specifics, including the burdens that the Louisiana law would have imposed on patients and providers.

However, Chief Justice Roberts—writing for only himself—pointedly rejected any balancing of benefits against burdens as part of the “undue burden” test in deciding the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. He would instead consider whether an abortion restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate purpose as a threshold requirement.

Even while it critiques the Court’s current approach to evaluating abortion restrictions, the Roberts concurrence does not change the undue burden standard that has protected abortion rights since 1992.

While he disagreed with the four other justices who explicitly affirmed the legal standard, Chief Justice Roberts’s “single vote does not create a common denominator on how to apply undue burden,” the report explains. “His concurrence cannot change the legal standard. It does no more than express his diverging view of the test, while WWH remains controlling precedent, unless or until the Court votes to overturn it.”

Since the June Medical Services decision, at least one lower court has relied on the Roberts concurrence to cast doubt on what legal standard applies. The Center’s report states, “This ignores that five justices in June Medical Services, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that WWH has continued stare decisis effect, which neither a single vote, nor a lower court, can change.”

“Only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent,” says the report, concluding that June Medical Services “narrowly preserved the balancing test that powerfully rejects laws that impose burdens that outweigh benefits, at least for now.”

The recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduces new uncertainty regarding the future Court’s commitment to the undue burden standard—and whether her replacement would abide by the balancing test or vote to reject established precedent.

Read the Center’s full report here: “The Undue Burden Standard After June Medical Services v. Russo”

Get the latest news on reproductive rights and opportunities to take action.

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion, Legal Restrictions

Regions:

United States

Work:

In the Courts

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Gift Acceptance Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2024)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Better Business Bureau Charity Watch Top Rated Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up
Abortion bans cost lives.

This isn't political—it's life or death.

GIVE NOW
Abortion is Essential Rally