Making the Case for Reproductive Rights: Julie Rikelman on Her Supreme Court Win
Julie Rikelman ’93, J.D. ’97, has taken the fight for access to abortion to the Supreme Court and won. A warrior for reproductive rights, Rikelman was the lead litigator for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, which was decided 5-4 for the plaintiff on June 29 (with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76, J.D. ’79, voting with his liberal colleagues).
The Louisiana Law and the Undue Burden
The senior director of U.S. litigation for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Rikelman argued successfully that the Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles placed an undue burden on the women of the state. In fact, the Louisiana law was explicitly modeled on the Texas law, and the facts were really the same. The Texas law shut down about half of the clinics in that state, and if this Louisiana law had taken effect it would have decimated abortion access in that state.
The following table summarizes the key aspects of the Supreme Court case and the contested law:
| Feature | Details from the Case |
|---|---|
| Case Name | June Medical Services LLC v. Russo |
| Ruling Date | June 29, 2020 |
| Decision Vote | 5-4 |
| Contested Restriction | Admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles |
Critical Points of the Decision
According to Rikelman, there are a couple of really critical points in the decision. First, five justices of the Supreme Court have said that this law was unconstitutional, that it imposes an undue burden on abortion access in Louisiana. For that reason, it has to be permanently blocked. This decision is critical for protecting access to abortion in Louisiana, as there are three clinics left in the state, and if this law had taken effect it would have made it virtually impossible for most people to get access to care.
The Importance of Standing and Precedent
The second critical point about the decision is that it rejects arguments that Louisiana has been making about something called third-party standing. Louisiana had claimed that this case should have been thrown out of court because physicians, medical providers, and medical practices shouldn’t have been able to bring this case at all on behalf of their patients. However, the court said that medical providers can bring these types of cases. If the court had ruled the other way, it really would have shut the courthouse doors to many of the lawsuits that challenge abortion restrictions.
The third point is that the court said that stare decisis is important. Because the Louisiana law was basically identical to one in Texas that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016 — a precedent emphasized by Roberts in his concurring opinion — this latest case was not only a test of precedent but a test of the changing court.
Looking Forward
The vote in this decision was five-four to block this law. Only one vote the other way would have allowed this law to take effect. It’s really important for people to remain vigilant, because we know that the opposition is relentless. We’ve had over 450 restrictions on abortion passed at the state level in the last 10 years, and those aren’t going to stop.