//  10/4/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

June Medical Services v. Gee involves a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform abortions. In February 2019, split five to four, the Supreme Court blocked this law from going into effect. On October 4, 2019, the Court granted review of the decision below, which upheld the law. This symposium addresses both the merits of the case and its broader context.

June Medical Services v. Gee and the Future of Abortion Rights

Leah Litman | 9/16/19

June Medical Services v. Gee is the Supreme Court’s next opportunity to weigh in on women’s constitutional right to decide to end their pregnancies

June Medical Services’ Double Threat to the Rule of Law

By Alicia Bannon and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf | 9/17/19 

In recent months, commentators and the justices themselves have raised concerns about declining public confidence in the judiciary. But confidence has to be earned. Enforcing the law and summarily reversing the Fifth Circuit is an essential first step.

SCOTUS Needs to Rein in Lower Courts Willing to Force Its Hand by Defying Its Precedent

David Strauss | 9/19/19

By David Strauss: Ideological lower court judges have challenged the Supreme Court by defying its precedent. There is one way for the Court to keep from being put in this position time and again. It should summarily reverse, making clear that only the Court will decide when its own precedent is no longer good law.

The Anti-Abortion Movement's Unworkability Strategy

Mary Ziegler | 9/23/19 

Antiabortion lawyers think that they can turn a fact and evidence-based legal standard into an argument against stare decisis, which would advance their ultimate goal of overturning Roe. In June Medical, it is time for the justices to prove them wrong.

A Duplicitous Playbook: June Medical Services v. Gee and the New Jane Crow

Michele Goodwin | 9/24/19

What is clear in June Medical Services v. Gee, as with the other antiabortion measures making their way through the courts, is that these targeted regulations of abortion providers have nothing to do with protecting women or their health

Pavan and June Medical Services

Mary Bonatuo and Shannon Minter | 9/27/19

Pavan and June Medical Services are both examples of lower courts bending over backwards to avoid the clear command of Supreme Court precedent. Both merit the same treatment from the Supreme Court – summary reversal.

June Medical And The End of Reproductive Justice

Leah Litman | 10/2/19

While June Medical does not ask the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the practical effect of the state’s positions would allow states to regulate abortion out of existence

 


Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – Requiem for the Establishment Clause?

7/1/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Those who still believe that the Constitution precludes state involvement in promoting religious thought and experience now have some work cut out for them

Ira C. Lupu

George Washington University Law School

Robert W. Tuttle

George Washington University Law School

Religious Discrimination And Racial Discrimination

6/30/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Court’s decision in Espinoza is similar to the trajectory of the law of racial discrimination in some respects, it also offers a striking contrast in others

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

June Medical As The New Casey

6/29/20  //  Quick Reactions

As in prior abortion cases, the Chief Justice gave abortion supporters a victory while at the same time laying the groundwork for much weaker protections for abortion rights.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School