This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioners argue that the law imposes an undue burden, offers no health‑safety benefits, and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent set in Whole Woman’s Health.
Background and question before the Court
The court also noted that physicians had attempted to obtain privileges at fifteen hospitals over one and a half years without success.
According to June Medical Services L.L.C., according to June Medical Services L.L.C., according to June Medical Services L.L.C., the central legal question is whether the admitting‑privileges requirement violates the Supreme Court’s precedent that such laws impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions.
What each side argues
June Medical Services (Petitioner)
According to June Medical Services L.L.C., according to June Medical Services L.L.C., according to June Medical Services L.L.C., petitioners cite Whole Woman’s Health, arguing that the Louisiana law imposes an undue burden similar to the Texas admitting‑privileges law struck down in that case.
According to June Medical Services, petitioners contend that the law provides no health‑safety benefits and is therefore invalid.
According to Ms. Murrill, petitioners argue that physicians lack reliable data on complication rates because women often do not follow up, undermining the justification for admitting‑privileges requirements.
State (Respondent)
According to State, the State’s credentialing expert testified that physicians who never intended to treat patients in the hospital would not obtain admitting privileges.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the third‑party standing issue had been raised in a timely manner.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the standing raised was direct rather than third‑party and referenced a possible conflict noted by Justice Alito.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a timely notice could have allowed a patient to join a lawsuit.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer inquired how many abortion cases the Court has allowed doctors to sue on behalf of women.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether the physician’s own interests conflicted with seeking admitting privileges.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether a law of this kind could ever have a valid purpose.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether most Louisiana hospitals require a certain number of patient admissions to grant privileges.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg compared the case to Craig v. Boren.
Justice Kagan asked whether the case was similar to a prior case.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg reiterated that most Louisiana hospitals require an admission record to grant privileges.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether hospitals could actually grant admitting privileges under the law.
- [1] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 7
- [2] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 10
- [3] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 15
- [4] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 16
- [5] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 21
- [6] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 28
- [7] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 45
- [8] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 54
- [9] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 65
- [10] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 68
- [11] e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdf, p. 68
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e5dfa542b3a1767bc2a5-r1-15a627f5b660c8e6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.