In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled the law - which mandated a physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of a facility where he or she performs an abortion - violated the U.S. Constitution by imposing an "undue burden" on a woman's right to the procedure.
If the circumstances sound at all familiar, it's not your imagination.
You would think one ruling of the Supreme Court in 2016 would be enough to discourage abortion opponents from passing a law identical to the one the court threw out.
According to Severino, who was Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' clerk, Roberts did not have to actually overturn settled law to find in favor of Louisiana.
A concurrence by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. provided the fifth vote to strike down the Louisiana law Monday, which requires doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike.
Mr Roberts' view of the actual Louisiana law, along with the four other conservative justices who opposed the decision, suggested that the court has a potentially decisive five votes supporting other restrictions on abortion.
Both sides saw the Louisiana case as a test of the court's view of abortion as a constitutional right.
I'll look forward to seeing Maine's senior senator say today that she's "concerned" about Kavanaugh doing the opposite of what he promised to do.
The court in June declined to hear a bid by Alabama to revive a Republican-enacted law that would have effectively banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But after then-Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley appealed Sachs' ruling to the 8 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel of that court found that Sachs had failed to weigh the law's benefits against its burdens and sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration.
In the court's opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer described the measure under consideration as "almost word-for-word identical" to the Texas law and said it "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana". In place of the "undue burden" rule regarding health and safety requirements, the Supreme Court should use a standard from a 1997 opinion that calls for "ordinary rational basis review", they said in the brief. The case could also fire up the President's supporters ahead of November's Presidential election.