June Medical Services v. Russo — A Threat to Physicians’ Standing to Challenge Abortion Regulations

This perspective examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, which invalidated Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers but also highlighted a growing judicial challenge to physicians’ legal standing to challenge abortion regulations. The article discusses the historical role of physicians in safeguarding reproductive rights through litigation, grounded in precedents like Singleton v. Wulff (1976), which affirmed physicians’ standing due to their close relationship with patients. The dissenting justices in June Medical contested this standing, framing abortion providers as having conflicting interests with patients a narrative often used to justify restrictive laws. The author warns that attacks on physician standing could undermine future judicial protections for abortion access, urging proactive legal strategies to preserve this critical avenue for challenging unconstitutional regulations.

This perspective examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, which invalidated Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers but also highlighted a growing judicial challenge to physicians’ legal standing to challenge abortion regulations. The article discusses the historical role of physicians in safeguarding reproductive rights through litigation, grounded in precedents like Singleton v. Wulff (1976), which affirmed physicians’ standing due to their close relationship with patients. The dissenting justices in June Medical contested this standing, framing abortion providers as having conflicting interests with patients a narrative often used to justify restrictive laws. The author warns that attacks on physician standing could undermine future judicial protections for abortion access, urging proactive legal strategies to preserve this critical avenue for challenging unconstitutional regulations.