WASHINGTON (BP) – In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sent the case of Idaho and Moyle v. U.S. back to the Ninth Circuit Court in a ruling released, June 27. The case involves a conflict between state law and the Biden Administration’s use of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

“At the heart of the case is the wild assertion by the Biden Administration that abortion is healthcare. Instead of dismantling that argument and protecting lives, the Court punted,” said Brent Leatherwood, Ethics & Religious Liberty (ERLC) president.

“We agree with Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch that any perceived conflict here is the result of the federal government’s novel approach to EMTALA. These justices would have moved forward with ruling on the merits of the case––and the Court should have done so,” he said.

The “unsigned order from the justices leaves in place an order by a federal judge in Idaho that temporarily blocks the state from enforcing its abortion ban, which carves out exceptions only to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest, to the extent that it conflicts with a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. That 1986 law requires emergency rooms in hospitals that receive Medicare to provide ‘necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who arrive with an “emergency medical condition,’” according to Amy Howe at scotusblog.com.

Leatherwood said the ERLC will continue to work to support the state law in the case.

According to the ERLC, “While Idaho’s law is allowed to remain in effect in the meantime, it is limited by a decision from the lower court permitting abortion when the health of the woman is deemed at serious risk, and continuing litigation will resolve a lack of clarity on what that terminology means.”

Leatherwood called the Biden Administration action a means to “radically reinterpret laws meant to save lives.”

Lawyers for the Biden Administration argued the law caused confusion between the state’s law prohibiting abortion and the federal regulation mandating physicians perform an abortion in a case when the mother’s health is deemed to be at emergency risk.

“I am disappointed that SCOTUS has not rejected the Biden administration’s blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. Throughout my 30-year career, EMTALA has never confused me or my obstetric peers when providing emergency care, especially considering 90% of obstetricians do not perform elective abortions,” said Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who also serves as the vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Pro-life advocates believe some women are manipulating the federal policy to receive an abortion in Idaho despite the state law.

“I have always – before Dobbs, and since– been able and willing to intervene if a pregnancy complication threatened my patient’s life, and every state pro-life law allows us to act. Forcing doctors to end an unborn patient’s life by abortion in the absence of a threat to his mother’s life is coercive, needless and goes against our oath to do no harm,” she said.

According to the ERLC, “The case will return to the Ninth Circuit with the injunction from the lower court once more in effect, where the court will hear the case on the merits and proceed, essentially, as if the Supreme Court had never taken up the case. This case or other litigation raising these underlying questions will likely return to the Supreme Court in coming terms.”

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.