The case, over a state law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is the first abortion ruling since two Trump appointees joined the court.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic, dashing the hopes of conservatives who were counting on President Trump’s appointments to lead the court to sustain restrictions on abortion rights and, eventually, to overrule Roe v.

Breyer, writing for the four liberals who joined with the chief justice in the majority, said the Louisiana law was “almost word-for-word identical” to the one from Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in the 2016 decision, Whole Woman’s Health v.

Both laws required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The court’s decision to revisit the issue of admissions privileges had worried proponents of abortion rights given Chief Justice Roberts’s support for the Texas law.

“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” the chief justice wrote in a concurring opinion that did not adopt Justice Breyer’s reasoning.

Still, it would be hasty to conclude that Chief Justice Roberts was prepared to strike down other abortion restrictions or that he would vote to sustain the Roe decision, which in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion, should a direct challenge to the ruling reach the court.

“In an unfortunate ruling today,” she said in a statement, “the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children by gutting Louisiana’s policy that required all abortion procedures be performed by individuals with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.”?

Justice Breyer wrote that the Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, imposed great burdens on access to abortion but did nothing to protect women’s health, its ostensible goal.

He wrote that hospitalizations after abortions were rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers were often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence.

Russo, the court ruled, 5 to 4, that a Louisiana law violated the Constitution when it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport

The evidence in the Louisiana case, Justice Breyer wrote, was “even stronger and more detailed” than in the Texas case

On Monday, Justice Breyer wrote that the Louisiana law would severely restrict abortion as a practical matter

“A Shreveport resident seeking an abortion who might previously have obtained care at one of that city’s local clinics would either have to spend nearly 20 hours driving back and forth,” Justice Breyer wrote, “or else find overnight lodging in New Orleans,” as the state imposes a waiting period between an initial consultation and the procedure

Alito Jr., joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, wrote that the Louisiana law protected the health and safety of women seeking abortions and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helped ensure the competence of doctors

“There is ample evidence in the record showing that admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher standard of competence than is shown by the mere possession of a license to practice,” Justice Alito wrote