According to the rules of procedure, the restored laws cannot enter into force for 21 days or until August 28.
Judges Lavensky R. Smith, Roger L. Wallman, and L. Stephen Grass noted that although Roberts advocated for the four Liberals in court in June to overturn Louisiana̵
They pointed out how, in his joint opinion, the Chief Justice dealt with the unjustified standard of gravity established in the important case of the Supreme Court. Planned parenting in Southeast Pat. Against Casey to determine whether a law creates a significant obstacle in the way of a woman seeking an abortion. Roberts believes that “the state and federal legislatures [have] “wide discretion to legislate in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty” in accordance with that decision, the judges noted.
Although the lower court, in reducing the restrictions that courts, not the legislature, must address issues of medical uncertainty, Roberts in the case of the Supreme Court “emphasizes the” wide discretion “that courts must afford. of the legislature in areas of medical uncertainty, – said the judges.
A thorough analysis of Roberts ‘opinion in a case that ultimately blocked the abortion restriction to maintain other restrictions was expected by several proponents and opponents of abortion rights in the light of Roberts’ opinion.
In a footnote, Roberts writes that “the validity of a law recognizing privileges depends on many factors that may vary from state to state.”
CNN Supreme Court analyst and Texas School of Law professor Stephen Vladek said at the time that Roberts suggested he did not have to approve an analysis of the 2016 decision, which focuses so much on whether restrictions are actually beneficial for pregnant women as to whether they impose unnecessary weight.
“In the process,” Vladek said, “the narrower view of the chief justice suggests that states that make different arguments in different cases may be able to justify such restrictions going forward. In this regard, the chief justice may have stood still. the side of abortion supporters today, but their victory may be short-lived. “
Proponents of abortion rights, who helped bring the case against the law, shook the decision and vowed to continue fighting it in court.
“This decision is a reminder that the fight against these extreme restrictions on abortion is far from won,” said Holly Dixon, legal director and interim executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas. “We appreciate our next steps and will continue to fight to ensure that these harmful and unconstitutional laws do not come into force.”
Hillary Schneler, a staff lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that “only a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court confirmed that the state cannot pass laws that unduly burden a person’s access to abortion, and that is exactly what these laws do.”
Opponents of access to abortion cheered the decision.
“Arkansas has taken a firm stand to protect the unborn from inhuman treatment,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement, adding that “she will continue to defend our state’s legal right to protect the unborn.”
Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life, said her group was confident that “according to the standard set in the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Casey against Planned Parenthood, this law would prevail” and “protection of the lives of unborn children. ”
Ariane de Vogue, Joan Biskupic, Devan Cole and Doug Chris contributed to this report.