The dust continues to settle from Wednesday’s argument in June Medical Services v. Russo, a challenge to a Louisiana law regulating abortion in which the state contends that abortion providers do not have a legal right to sue on behalf of their patients. At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery argues that “[t]he court should make clear that abortion providers have to follow the same legal rules as all other litigants[:] Women can speak for themselves, and, perhaps, the fact that no woman joined this suit sends a message about what the women of Louisiana want.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post (subscription required), Mary Ziegler observes that “[a]ccepting Louisiana’s standing claim might make it much harder for anyone to get an abortion case to the Supreme Court,” “[b] But its impact would go beyond that, blessing the antiabortion claim that abortion providers don’t have women’s best interests at heart.” At the Reproductive Rights Prof Blog, Cynthia Soohoo writes that questioning at the argument “suggested that a majority of justices wished to focus on the very narrow question of how lower courts should apply [a recent precedent] to admitting privilege laws rather than to revisit the Court’s abortion jurisprudence.” Additional commentary comes from Anna North at Vox. At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson report that “leaving the contentious issues in the dispute aside, the event served to spotlight the recurring problem of spectator access to the nation’s highest court.”
Bill Hutchinson and Ella Torres report at ABC News that “[t]he controversial execution of Nathaniel Woods was carried out late Thursday in Alabama just minutes after the Supreme Court denied a temporary stay, issued only hours earlier.” Amy Howe covered the court’s orders in the case for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Briefly:
We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY