The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case concerning whether a 1986 federal law preempts Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The Idaho statute criminalizes performing or attempting to perform an abortion unless not doing so would result in the mother’s death. The Biden administration argues that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts the Idaho law. The case is an appeal from a Ninth Circuit decision that halted Idaho’s ban.

Attorney Joshua Turner argued on behalf of the petitioners. Turner asserted that states are responsible for licensing doctors and setting the scope of their professional practice and that the Biden administration misreads EMTALA. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrestled with Turner on the scope of EMTALA and what it tells hospitals to do.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Turner on what the Idaho law tells doctors to do in an emergency. Sotomayor also compared the Idaho law with real-life scenarios, including a situation in Florida where a woman was denied medical care when she was experiencing pregnancy complications because the doctors could not conclude that she would die from the complication. The next day, the woman experienced bleeding, and doctors treated her because she could have died from the bleeding. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also asked how the Idaho law would impact a woman in this scenario. 

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued on behalf of the US. Prelogar asserted that Idaho cannot criminalize the medical care that EMTALA requires. Justice Samuel Alito asked Prelogar how EMTALA’s standard of care impacts women at different stages of their pregnancy differently. Additionally, Alito had Prelogar define several terms with EMTALA to better understand the standard it sets for hospitals treating patients in emergency scenarios, including “serious jeopardy.” Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Prelogar on the scope of Congress’s spending power and if this limits EMTALA’s ability to regulate hospitals. Lastly, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Prelogar if EMTALA requires religiously affiliated hospitals to perform abortions, to which Prelogar responded, “No.”

EMTALA sets conditions for hospitals to receive Medicare funds and mandates that hospitals have to “stabilize” patients with emergency conditions in hospitals.

In response to the arguments, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) plays a critical role in ensuring that patients across the country have access to emergency medical care and lifesaving interventions. For pregnant people, abortion may be the lifesaving intervention needed. It is therefore essential that abortion care be covered by the federal protections afforded by EMTALA. We urge the Supreme Court to preserve EMTALA’s protections for emergency abortion care even in states where abortion is otherwise banned or restricted.

Abortion continues to be a divisive issue in the US since the 2022 US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. There, the court ruled that abortion was not a constitutional right but a state-level issue, laying the foundation for states to ban abortion entirely or at specific gestational milestones. Earlier this month, Arizona’s Supreme Court found that a 159-year-old law prohibiting abortion is enforceable. After this, the Arizona House of Representatives erupted into chants of “shame” after Republican members voted to adjourn instead of discussing a bill that would repeal the state’s 1864 abortion ban.