WASHINGTON (Gray DC) – The Supreme Court dismissed a pair of cases on Thursday about emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily clearing the way for hospitals in the state to perform the procedure despite the state’s near-total abortion ban.

A majority of the court agreed that Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States were granted “improvidently,” meaning mistakenly, and punted them back to the lower courts for further litigation.

The cases began nearly two years ago in the wake of the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion ban, which bars the procedure in nearly all cases except “when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” and in cases of rape or incest.

The administration argued that the ban conflicts with a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. The law requires nearly all hospitals, those that receive Medicare, to provide emergency services to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

The administration said in its brief that the Idaho ban’s exception was narrower than the federal law, “which by its terms protects patients not only from imminent death but also from emergencies that seriously threaten their health.”

But Thursday, the high court did not address the core issue of the case, whether federal law preempts state abortion bans. While the litigation continues, the Supreme Court reinstated a lower court’s ruling, allowing for emergency abortions in Idaho for the time being.

The court decided that it got involved too early, with Justice Amy Cooney Barrett writing in her opinion it “was a miscalculation in these cases, because the parties’ positions are still evolving.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her opinion that the decision “is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it.”

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote in his opinion that court should not have sidestepped the issue.

“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable,” Alito wrote.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said after the ruling that the Justice Department will continue to push to use every tool it can to ensure that women have access to essential emergency care that is provided under EMTALA.

“Today’s order means that while we continue to litigate our case, women in Idaho will once again have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law,” he said.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador wrote after the ruling that as the case proceeds, the state will be able to enforce its law.

In a statement, he said in part:

“The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit today after my office won significant concessions from the United States that Justice Barrett described as ‘important’ and ‘critical.’ Today, the Court said that Idaho will be able to enforce its law to save lives in the vast majority of circumstances while the case proceeds. The Biden administration’s concession that EMTALA will rarely override Idaho’s law caused the Supreme Court to ask the 9th Circuit for review in light of the federal government’s change in position… We look forward to ending this Administration’s relentless overreach into Idahoans’ right to protect and defend life.”

Executive Director of the Chicago Abortion Fund Megan Jeyifo said the decision offers a reprieve but does not see the decision positively, and said it creates chaos and confusion.

“The court did not rule on whether EMTALA preempts state bans. So this is not a win. This means that this case will likely come again,” she said.

Copyright 2024 Gray DC. All rights reserved.

IDAHO FALLS — After months of hard-fought negotiations, teachers in Idaho Falls School District 91 officially have a new 2024-2025 contract. In a work session Tuesday, the district’s Board of Trustees approved the Idaho Falls Education Association’s Monday vote to ratify the master contract.

“It was overwhelmingly a ‘yes’ to approve it,” Idaho Falls Education Association (IFEA) lead negotiator Jake Snarr said of the teacher’s vote. “… I think the big thing that they feel better about is that there is more transparency here and that teachers have more of a voice in some of the decision-making.”

RELATED | Teachers protest outside D91 after salary negotiations resume

The contract will boost teachers’ base salary by 1.8%.

The agreement was reached with the assistance of a federal mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services at no cost to either party, said Idaho Falls School District 91 Superintendent Karla LaOrange. The federal government provides this service to assist public entities that need help with negotiations.

Both the district’s and the teachers’ negotiating teams are bound by confidentiality agreements not to discuss the proposals put forward during the process, but the procedure followed was straightforward.

The two teams met in separate rooms and the mediator went between the two groups via Zoom, acting as an intermediary and relaying different proposals. Negotiations started at 10 a.m. on June 18 and lasted 12 hours before both sides reached a tentative agreement.

“I’ve learned that when we have a common goal, that we can come together, and we can we can find a way to come to an agreement, keep moving forward and work together,” LaOrange said. “I think that’s probably the tribute here, that that in the end, we were able to do that, and we’ll continue to be able to do that.”

RELATED | Teacher rallies continue at District 91 office as salary negotiations move forward

The teachers’ association originally voted not to ratify the contract in a May 22 meeting that followed weeks of negotiations. The district originally offered a 0% raise while teachers requested a 5% boost, along with increased transparency and respect from the district.

RELATED | D91 Teachers vote not to ratify contract; issue vote of no confidence in superintendent and finance director

In the final contract, both parties agreed to several measures that had not been included in the previous May 22 version.

“There’s a one-time payment of $500 for teachers with 20 years of experience with the district,” LaOrange said. “So that’s our recognition for their working in the district that long.”

They also agreed to establish a committee of six individuals — three chosen by the superintendent and three chosen by the teacher’s association — to “discuss the impact of the reduction of four half-time resource (room) positions,” LaOrange said.

In another memorandum, the district agreed that if it receives additional state funding due to sufficient increases in student enrollment and attendance, it will provide automatic raises to teachers using the revenue coming in.

Currently, school districts receive discretionary funding from the state according to the number of “support units” that they serve. A “support unit” is roughly the size of a classroom and is used by the state to provide funding for teachers, principals, custodians, and paraprofessionals. The number of students that make up a support unit varies by grade.

According to memorandum two, if the district exceeds 475 support units, wages will go up 0.1%. If it exceeds 477 support units, wages will increase 0.2%, or 2% higher base pay than today’s salary scale.

“We didn’t have an increase in salary based on what was attempted to ratify before,” Snarr said. “But because there is willingness from the district to put more in if the district gets more money from the state, I think people feel a lot better about that, because now they don’t feel like the district is trying to hold money and keep money from them that’s earmarked for their salary.”

Snarr said the association’s teachers are not opposed to the district building up its savings fund, as the board of trustees has prioritized, but memorandum two ensures that the district’s teachers are valued as well.

“I think it just really helps people to they can almost swallow the pill of the salary. It’s not the best in the state. It’s pretty comparable to what’s going on around us,” he said. “But now that the district has said, if we get more money, we will distribute it onto the salary, people feel so much better about that.”

The district also will provide all full-time employees a $300 one-time payment or $150 for part-time employees, leadership stipends and increases to coaching stipends for athletics, theater, debate and eSports.

The total cost of the contract package (without benefits) is $4,708,656, according to the district’s Finance Director Lanell Farmer.

“I thought that everyone was very professional as we worked through the negotiations into mediation process,” LaOrange said. “… Moving forward, I am working with the IFEA leadership throughout the summer and anticipate that we’ll move forward in a positive way to help our students learn. That’s the focus too — it’s great adults helping kids reach their potential and have doors open to them.”

Both parties said relations between the teacher’s association and administration have improved since May, but more work remains.

“I just have a lot of confidence in our teachers, and I value them. I am grateful that we continued and worked through difficult things,” LaOrange said. “I think there aren’t a lot of models and examples of people doing that, but we did. We worked through a big challenge and came to a good conclusion.”

Snarr agreed that significant progress has been made.

“I think all parties involved are moving towards mending that relationship, and I think the transparency that the district is willing to provide over the course of this next year is going a long way to build back that trust between the association, the school district and also the taxpayers too,” Snarr said. “I know the taxpayers aren’t typically super involved in a negotiation process, but I think when they know that dollars are being spent wisely, and we have a good accounting of those dollars as the year goes on, then people have more confidence in the school district, and that helps the district’s initiatives going forward, such as levies and bonds.”

At the end of the day, it’s the students that draw both teachers and administrators back to the classrooms, eager to learn more together.

“That’s really what I believe education does is give you opportunity. We want kids to have every opportunity available to them,” LaOrange said. “Change lives. Be the lighthouse.”