ºìÌÒÊÓƵ

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that had immediate impacts on the national medical community. In a close 5-4 decision, the court reversed a lower court ruling that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

While the ruling is a victory for abortion-rights supporters, it is by no means a full-throated endorsement of abortion rights by the court, ºìÌÒÊÓƵ Professor Peter Nicolas says. In just three minutes, he breaks down the case, shares need-to-know insights and answers questions about the biggest takeaways from the controversial decision.

Read the Transcript

Three-Minute Legal Tips: Can you briefly explain the Supreme Court decision in June Medical Services v. Russo?

Peter Nicolas; In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that regulated abortion providers. Specifically, it required that any doctor providing an abortion needed to have what are known as admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a very narrow five-to-four, decision looked at the law, viewed it as identical to a Texas law it struck down four years earlier and therefore they struck this down as well.

TMLT: Why is this Supreme Court decision noteworthy?

PN: With the retirement of Justice Kennedy a few years ago, many people thought that there would now be a majority, a clear majority of five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the entire Roe v. Wade set of decisions and with Chief Justice Roberts decision to join the liberal group on the court, on this particular opinion, it showed that that's not the direction that the court is going to head in. It's not going to do a nice clean overturning of Roe v. Wade.

TMLT: How does this decision affect an average person?

PN: So, if you are a woman in Louisiana who at some point in time might want the option to have an abortion, it directly impacts you because the law was going to really restrict the number of people who were qualified under the law to actually provide abortions. More generally, it's important to people because it lets them know that at least under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts, the court is going to continue to respect precedent

TMLT: What are some key takeaways from this decision?

PN: Two things you want to take away from this decision are, one, the court did not overturn Roe v. Wade. There continues to be a constitutional right to some degree to obtain an abortion in the United States and second the Chief Justice in lending his fifth vote to the five justice majority did somewhat narrow the scope of the right, his vote is the pivotal one.

TMLT: Are there any misperceptions to keep in mind?

PN: So, I think if someone just looked at a news headline that said well the court by a decision of five to four upholds Roe v. Wade, they might think well this is some sort of full-throated defense of Roe v. Wade. And that's not what it was. It was sort of by the skin of its teeth. Chief Justice Roberts, who is known as a critic of that decision, at the same time said I'm going to respect precedent. So that's, I think, one critical thing—is that it's a limited defense of Roe.