June Medical Services v. Gee

admin Constitutional Law, Health Law, U. S. Supreme Court

We began the year with a brief opposing abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our brief defends a Louisiana statute requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges.  The Louisiana statute is similar to the Texas statute considered in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.  The law was challenged by an abortion clinic and abortion doctors, claiming that the statute creates an “undue burden” on the court-created right to an abortion. Our brief argued that the clinic and the doctors did not have standing to assert the rights of women who were not part of the case. Instead, we argued, the “undue burden” test is flawed and should be abandoned.  Finally, we explained that for decades the Supreme Court has applied its terrible “super-precedent” of Roe v. Wade, to corrupt any legal principle that would stand in the way of abortion rights.  We asked the Court to continue to reject what we termed its  “abortion-predilection” jurisprudence that began with National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (“NIFLA”).  The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on March 4, 2020.

Link to June v. Gee amicus brief

The brief we filed in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (February 3, 2016) is here.

The brief we filed in NIFLA at the petition stage (April 20, 2017) is here.

The brief we filed in NIFLA at the merits state (January 16, 2018) is here.