Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down two Texas abortion regulations, finding they created a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortions without offering sufficient medical benefits, thus constituting an unconstitutional “undue burden” under the standard set in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Legal Significance: This case clarified the “undue burden” test, establishing that courts must weigh the asserted health benefits of an abortion regulation against the burdens it imposes on access, and must not defer to legislative findings when constitutional rights are at stake.
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Texas enacted House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which imposed two significant restrictions on abortion providers. The “admitting-privileges requirement” mandated that a physician performing an abortion must have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. The “surgical-center requirement” compelled abortion facilities to meet the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), which included detailed and costly specifications for staffing, building dimensions, and equipment. Prior to H.B. 2, Texas had over 40 licensed abortion facilities. After the admitting-privileges requirement took effect, the number of clinics dropped by nearly half. Projections showed that the surgical-center requirement would further reduce the number to seven or eight facilities, all located in major metropolitan areas. A group of Texas abortion providers challenged these provisions, arguing they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. The District Court found extensive evidence that the law provided no significant health benefits, as abortion was already a very safe procedure in Texas, while creating substantial obstacles to access. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court should have deferred to the legislature’s judgment on medical matters.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do state law provisions that require abortion-performing physicians to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and require abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers impose an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion?
Yes. Both the admitting-privileges requirement and the surgical-center requirement impose an undue Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Do state law provisions that require abortion-performing physicians to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and require abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers impose an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion?
Conclusion
The decision solidified the undue burden standard as a balancing test, requiring Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
A state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional if its purpose or effect Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the application of the undue burden standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fug
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Supreme Court struck down Texas’s admitting-privileges and surgical-center requirements for