[Excerpt] This column is the third and final installment of a series considering some potential implications of June Medical Services v. Russo, a case involving a constitutional challenge to a Louisiana law regulating access to abortion services. The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4. A decision is expected shortly.

The first column sought to place June Medical Services in context by describing the history of constitutional abortion-rights litigation at the Supreme Court. The second explained what the case is likely to tell us about the respect the court will show to prior constitutional precedents - prior Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution -with which it disagrees. This column discusses how the case illustrates the difficulties presented when courts are asked to assess the constitutionality of laws alleged to have been enacted, or of other government action alleged to have-been undertaken; in bad faith - that­ is, for reasons other than those suggested on the face of the law or provided to justify the action. As discussed below, June Medical Services is not the only recent Supreme Court case to have grappled with this issue.

Publication Date


Journal Title

The Concord Monitor


The Concord Monitor

Document Type

News Article

Additional Information

This article is part of the series Constitutional Connections by John M. Greabe and was originally published by the Concord Monitor.