Frederick Hopkins v. Larry Jegley, 968 F.3d 912

In 2017 the Arkansas legislature enacted four abortion-related laws: (1) the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act; (2) the Sex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act; (3) an amendment on disposition of fetal remains; and (4) an amendment on maintaining forensic samples from abortions performed on a child.
Abortion providers obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court blocking enforcement of those laws; the district court applied Whole Woman’s Health’s undue-burden balancing (weighing benefits against burdens).
The State (Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney and Arkansas State Medical Board) appealed the preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit.
After the district court decision, the Supreme Court decided June Medical Services v. Russo, where Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment but rejected Whole Woman’s Health’s cost–benefit balancing as the controlling undue-burden test, instead endorsing Casey’s “substantial obstacle” inquiry and broader legislative deference.
The Eighth Circuit held that Chief Justice Roberts’s concurrence is the controlling rationale under Marks and therefore vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration in light of June Medical and Box v. Planned Parenthood.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for undue-burden review	Apply Whole Woman’s Health balancing: weigh law’s burdens against its benefits	June Medical (Roberts) controls; courts should apply Casey’s substantial-obstacle test and give deference to legislatures	Court ruled June Medical (Roberts concurrence) controls and vacated injunction for reconsideration
Effect of June Medical on district court’s analysis	District court correctly followed Whole Woman’s Health pre-June Medical	June Medical undermines the balancing approach the district court used	Court found district court did not consider Roberts’s controlling opinion and remanded
Role of judicial weighing vs. legislative deference	Courts may weigh benefits and burdens to assess undue burden	Courts must be cautious and afford legislatures wide discretion where medical uncertainty exists	Court emphasized legislative deference per Roberts and directed reconsideration under that framework
Remedy at preliminary-injunction stage	Injunction appropriate because burdens outweigh benefits under Whole Woman’s Health	Injunction must be reassessed using controlling Supreme Court precedent	Court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration

June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) (plurality and controlling concurrence addressing undue-burden framework and holding Roberts’s concurrence controls)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (articulated balancing test weighing benefits against burdens under undue-burden standard)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (established undue-burden/substantial-obstacle framework)
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (discussed legislative deference in areas of medical uncertainty)
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019) (per curiam decision cited for post-WHOLE/June considerations)
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (governs how to treat fragmented Supreme Court opinions as controlling)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (example in Marks discussion regarding multiple rationales)
Marrs v. Motorola, Inc., 577 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2009) (cited for caution against unstructured balancing tests)