Whoa -- June Medical is Breyer. This is HUGE

Roberts says Whole Womans Health is still wrong -- but votes to apply it and strike down Louisiana's identical law

I'm something close to shocked -- it is VERY unusual for a justice to accept a relatively recent precedent she disagrees with in such a politically salient case -- but I'll take it!

Thomas with the transparently ludicrous argument that abortion providers have no standing to challenge a law that effectively stops them from practicing their trade in dissent

[Arby's announcer voice] We have the opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

On June Medical, I'm going to start with the Roberts concurrence, which is the most important going forward

Here's the Chief's bottom line, which also helps to explain why Kagan joined that awful Alito unanimous jury dissent earlier this term

The "special circumstances" would seem to be "I'm not as fanatically opposed to reproductive rights as I am to voting rights or labor rights," but anyway for now take the money and run!

Roberts has a lengthy section attacking Whole Woman's Health for putting too much emphasis on whether a regulation has the health benefits the states claims for it. Basically, he prefers the pre-2016 Casey in which states could do almost anything short of a formal ban

Roberts reminds us that Stevens would have (correctly) struck down the 24-hour waiting period as an "undue burden" in Casey

Obviously, abortion rights do not remain on very secure footing. Roberts here is basically inviting pro-life litigators to bring him something that they haven't already tried at the Supreme Court level yet.

OK, let's look at Breyer's majority. Obviously, for the 4 members of the plurality who think Whole Woman's Health was correctly decided, this was an easy case, as you'd have to have Brett Kavanaugh levels of bad faith to see the cases as meaningfully different

Reiterates the District Court's finding that abortion is a very safe procedure in Louisiana, and therefore there is no legitimate reason to single them out for onerous burdens:

Also reiterates District Court findings that upholding the regulations would make it nearly impossible for women to attain an abortion, because state officials were using them as a pretext to stop clinics and doctors from operating legally

When a law imposes a significant burdens on a woman's right to choose, and the health benefits asserted by the state are an obvious sham, it is clearly an "undue burden." Roberts's concurrence is dangerous because he prefers to ignore the latter half of the equation

LOL Alito and Gorsuch argue that the Court should ignore extensive precedent on standing because of Louisiana's comically bad faith assertions that these regulations were intended to protect the health of women. Breyer quickly brushes that dead rat off the deck

How upholding the Louisiana statute would have strangled abortion access in the state

Also important to note that the various other arbitrary restrictions the state places on woman seeking abortions would magnify the effect of shutting down most of the state's clinics

Breyer then turns to the health benefits the law offers women in exchange for the massive burden it imposes on them. The answer is "none"

This is, in conclusion, an easy case unless you think a woman's right to choose should be given virtually no consideration

And, with that I have an article to write! More later today. There is reason to be concerned going forward, but as of now this is the best that could have been hoped for, and at least suggests that gutting Roe isn't a top priority for Roberts.