Supreme Court ruling allows emergency abortion access in Idaho for now

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.