Swing-Vote Roberts Focuses On Precedent, Narrow Scope Of Laws In Louisiana Abortion Case’s Oral Arguments

The Associated Press: Supreme Court Divided In 1st Big Abortion Case Of Trump Era
A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with its first major abortion case of the Trump era, leaving Chief Justice John Roberts as the likely deciding vote. Roberts did not say enough to tip his hand in an hour of spirited arguments at the high court. The court's election-year look at a Louisiana dispute could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. A decision should come by late June. (Sherman, 3/4)

The New York Times: Justices Give Few Hints On How They Will Rule On Louisiana Abortion Law
The members of the court who may hold the key votes — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Kavanaugh — focused their questions on whether they were bound by a 2016 decision by the court that struck down an identical Texas law. They suggested that at least half of the cost-benefit analysis was identical in the two states, and they wondered whether that was sufficient to decide the case. “I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “but as far as the benefits of the law, that’s going to be the same in each state, isn’t it?” The court’s four liberal members seemed convinced that the Louisiana law, like the one from Texas, imposed the sort of “undue burden” on the right to abortion prohibited by the court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. (Liptak, 3/4)

Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court Justices Divided In Abortion Case; Roberts May Hold Key
Roberts appeared to acknowledge in his questions that he might feel bound by the court's 2016 finding that admitting privileges laws provide no health benefit to women. But his questions also indicated he may stray from the 2016 finding about the specific impact of the Texas law, which led to multiple clinic closures, because Louisiana's situation could be viewed differently. Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would be forced to close if the law is allowed to take effect, according to lawyers for the clinic. Louisiana officials have said no clinics would be forced to close. (Hurley and Chung, 3/4)

Politico: Outcome Of Louisiana Abortion Case May Rest On Roberts, Kavanaugh
Roberts and Kavanaugh both appeared to probe the scope of that decision Wednesday, with Roberts suggesting at several points that the ruling that the Texas law had no medical benefit would seem to extend to Louisiana and other states. “As far as the benefits of the law, that’s going to be the same in each state, isn’t it?” Roberts asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who was defending the measure. Murrill resisted that idea, but it suggested that Roberts — who dissented in the 2016 case, Hellerstedt v. Whole Women’s Health — was looking for a way to have the court stand by that decision, rather than overrule it. T.J. Tu, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued the case on behalf of the Louisiana clinics, afterward said Roberts’ comment makes him “very confident” of a ruling in their favor. (Ollstein and Gerstein, 3/4)

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Conservatives Open To Louisiana Abortion Law
Even though the high court had struck down the similar Texas law as unconstitutional, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the Louisiana law on the grounds that the admitting-privileges rule would have less effect in Louisiana. Kavanaugh agreed with Roberts, saying the issue was not simply whether admitting privileges by themselves are improper, but whether they impose an undue burden. If, for example, all doctors in a state obtained admitting privileges, would a requirement on abortion providers still be unconstitutional, he asked. “Could you say that the law still imposes an undue burden, even if there is no effect?” Rikelman conceded that would be a harder case to win. She stressed, however, the admitting privileges rule “has no medical benefits whatsoever.” (Savage, 3/4)

The Washington Post: Supreme Court Review Of Louisiana Abortion Law May Come Down To John Roberts
Gorsuch did not ask a question during the hour-long oral arguments. Kavanaugh’s questioning was similar to that of Roberts, as he wondered whether different conditions in states could afford different outcomes than in the 2016 case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. “Are you saying admitting-privileges requirements are always unconstitutional, such that we don’t have to look at the facts state by state?” Kavanaugh asked attorney Julie Rikelman after posing a hypothetical about a state with 10 clinics and 20 doctors, all with the necessary credentials. Kavanaugh had previously voted to allow the Louisiana law to go into effect, saying it was unclear whether doctors had worked hard enough to secure the privileges. (Barnes and Marimow, 3/4)

The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Justices Voice Clashing Views As They Weigh Louisiana Abortion Law
Justice Samuel Alito asked early on why abortion providers even had standing to bring legal claims based on alleged burdens faced by patients—those the state is trying to protect from abortion providers. Ms. Rikelman responded that the providers, as those being directly regulated by the state, had proper legal standing. “Well, that’s amazing,” Justice Alito said. Throughout the argument, he returned to the theme that abortion clinics potentially held a conflict of interest with women seeking abortions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out prior cases where the court allowed third parties to assert constitutional rights on behalf of their clients. (Bravin and Kendall, 3/5)

Roll Call: Fiery Exchanges In Supreme Court Over Louisiana Abortion Law
Much of the passionate questioning came from justices Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – with the latter two questioning the purpose of the state law. Rikelman stated that 40 percent of abortions in Louisiana are medication abortions rather than surgical procedures, and complications, while rare, would likely only occur when the patient was already at home. Ginsburg argued that because of this, most clinic procedures have no complications, and if a woman did need to go to a hospital, she would likely choose the closest to her home rather than one near the clinic. (Raman, 3/4)

ABC News: Louisiana Abortion Case May Hinge On Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led the more liberal-leaning justices in an aggressive attack on the Louisiana law, with questioning primarily focusing on whether admitting privileges have a benefit in the first place. Ginsburg pointed out several times -- calling it "odd" -- that the requirement is for hospitals within 30 miles of a clinic, but how that wouldn't necessarily be close to a patient who experiences complications at home. (Dwyer and Svokos, 3/4)

CNN: Supreme Court Appears Split After Hearing First Major Abortion Case With Strong Conservative Majority 
Justice Elena Kagan said that doctors can be denied privileges under the law for reasons having nothing to do with their medical expertise. She, too, pushed on the claim that in one clinic, thousands of abortions had been performed, but the clinic had only ever transferred four patients to a hospital. "Is it right that there is evidence in the record that Hope Clinic has served over 3,000 women annually for 23 years, so that's around 70,000 women, and has transferred only four patients ever to a hospital?" she asked. (de Vogue, 3/4)

The New York Times: John Roberts Condemns Schumer For Saying Justices ‘Will Pay The Price’ For ‘Awful Decisions’
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who only very rarely responds to criticism of federal judges, issued a statement on Wednesday denouncing remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, at a rally outside the Supreme Court. Mr. Schumer, speaking while the court heard arguments in a major abortion case, attacked President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Mr. Schumer said. “You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” (Liptak, 3/4)

Politico: Roberts Slams Schumer For 'Dangerous' Rhetoric Against Justices
After Roberts’ criticism, Schumer doubled down. A spokesman declined to apologize for the senator’s remarks and argued that Roberts’ rebuke undermined his own impartiality. “Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” said Justin Goodman, a Schumer aide. (Gerstein, 3/4)

The Washington Post: John Roberts Rebukes Schumer Fo Saying Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Will 'Pay The Price' For A Vote Against Abortion Rights
On the left, Brian Fallon of the liberal nonprofit organization Demand Justice, said: “It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for John Roberts to condemn these comments by Chuck Schumer after saying nothing when President Trump attacked two Democratic-appointed justices just last month.” Schumer’s remarks came during the circuslike atmosphere that plays out in front of the Supreme Court whenever it hears a controversial case, especially abortion. As protesters from both sides of the issue crowded the sidewalk, Schumer spoke to abortion rights supporters. (Barnes and Itkowitz, 3/4)

NBC News: Abortion Rights Demonstrators Rally Outside Supreme Court As Major Case Is Heard
Abortion rights supporters gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, while the justices inside heard arguments for a major abortion case that has the potential to chip away at access in Louisiana. The Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport is challenging a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. If the law is upheld, a district court found that two of the three remaining clinics would close, leaving the state with one abortion provider. (Atkins and Williams, 3/4)

Roll Call: Lawmakers Use Supreme Court Case To Press Abortion Views 
The sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court turned into a microcosm of the national debate over abortion Wednesday, a cacophony from dueling rallies that pressed each side’s legal, legislative and cultural views. Members of Congress on booming public-address systems tried to speak over the din, as the abutting anti-abortion and abortion rights groups waved signs, dressed up their dogs or chanted slogans. (Ruger, 3/4)

New Orleans Times-Picayune: Abortion-Rights Activists Rally In New Orleans As Supreme Court Decides Fate Of Louisiana's Clinics
Rained out from the initial plan to meet in Lafayette Square, the about 50 participants livestreamed a corresponding Washington, D.C., rally from inside a cozy office building in the middle of the city, and then several people in New Orleans offered remarks. The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, could leave Louisiana with just a single abortion clinic if a state law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital is upheld. (Woodruff, 3/4)