Idaho

Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Idaho Abortion Case

Published

2 years ago

July 1, 2024

Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Idaho Abortion Case

A fractured Supreme Court voted 5-4 Thursday to “dismiss as improvidently granted” Moyle v. United States, a case involving abortion in cases of medical emergencies. “Since this suit began in the District Court, Idaho law has significantly changed—twice,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in favor of dismissing the case. And since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, “the parties’ litigating positions have rendered the scope of the dispute unclear, at best.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to punt the case shouldn’t have been surprising. During oral argument in April, Barrett and Kavanaugh struggled to see if there’s a real conflict between what federal law requires—that is, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) command that hospitals accepting Medicare funds must provide emergency care—and Idaho’s law allowing abortion only to save the life of the mother. Two months later, they remain unsure whether such a conflict really exists.

Barrett noted in her concurrence that when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January, the state of Idaho argued the federal government’s EMTALA guidance “would render Idaho’s Act virtually unenforceable. As Idaho understood it, the Government’s theory would allow physicians to perform abortions whenever necessary to avoid ‘serious jeopardy’ to the mother’s mental health.”

But in its briefs and at oral arguments, the federal government argued that EMTALA would never require offering abortion for mental health reasons. For its part, Idaho attested that every single emergent physical-health condition identified by the federal government was treatable under the state’s abortion law’s exception to save the life of the mother.

Barrett also noted that the federal government clarified that federal conscience protections would protect “both hospitals and individuals physicians” from having to perform abortions and also clarified that EMTALA “requires delivery, not abortion” after viability, when a baby can survive outside the womb. In sum, she wrote, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final judgment was a “miscalculation” because “the parties’ positions are still evolving.” While sending the case back down to the lower courts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts also voted with the three liberal Supreme Court justices to lift the stay of a district court ruling because “even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact.”

The other six justices disagreed with them about the potential lack of conflict between federal and state law, pointing to the text of the statutes. While two liberal appointees, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, voted to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Supreme Court should never have taken up the case before the 9th Circuit issued a judgment, they think there’s an obvious conflict. Kagan wrote in a concurrence joined by Sotomayor that EMTALA requires stabilizing treatment when a woman’s health is in “serious jeopardy,” but Idaho’s law “allows abortion only when ‘necessary to prevent’ a pregnant woman’s ‘death.’” Indeed, Justice Samuel Alito agreed in his dissent joined by Justices Neil Goruch and Clarence Thomas that the case is “a straightforward question of statutory interpretation.”

The Kagan concurrence and the Alito dissent disagree on many points, including what EMTALA’s command to protect an “unborn child” means—and whether it’s plausible that a Congress and pro-life Republican president who banned federal funding of abortion except to save the life of the mother in 1986 would have passed a law that same year (EMTALA) requiring hospitals to perform abortions in less serious situations.

But perhaps most significantly, Alito effectively conceded that Kagan and pro-abortion rights groups are at least partially right about the conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s abortion law.

Kagan noted Idaho’s “largest provider of emergency services had to airlift pregnant women out of Idaho roughly every other week, compared to once in all of the prior year (when the injunction was in effect).” These cases generally, if not entirely, involve previable premature rupture of membranes (PPROM)—when a pregnant woman’s water breaks before 22 weeks of pregnancy. Before viability, hospitals typically offer both expectant management and immediate delivery due to the risk of sepsis. But Idaho’s largest hospital network told the court in an amicus brief that due to “legal uncertainty” surrounding Idaho law, “these patients are now being transferred out of state unless they are at imminent risk of death.”

In a brief to the court, the state of Idaho emphasized that its state Supreme Court has already ruled there is no requirement for the threat to be “immediate” before a woman can get such treatment, and the law only requires doctors to exercise “good faith” medical judgment that is “wholly subjective.” The Idaho abortion law, according to the state’s brief, allows treatment for “a pregnant woman whose water breaks before her child is viable because Idaho’s life-of-the-mother exception would apply. This is why the [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] stay panel below had no trouble concluding that every circumstance described by the administration’s declarations involved life-threatening circumstances under which Idaho law would allow an abortion.”

Alito’s dissent, however, claims there “may be” a conflict between the federal government’s EMTALA guidance and Idaho’s abortion law in some of these PPROM cases. As he built his argument that the case must be decided now due to existing conflict, Alito wrote that before 34 weeks of pregnancy the “chances of conflict” between state law and the Biden administration’s EMTALA guidance “are greatly increased,” and “before the 24th week of pregnancy, the potential for conflict appears to be even higher.”

According to Alito, because Idaho’s abortion law imposes a “subjective” standard for doctors to determine when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother:

[D]ifferent doctors may reach different conclusions about when PPROM endangers the woman’s life. At least some may conclude in some cases of PPROM occurring before the 34th week of pregnancy that the woman’s life is not endangered since she may never develop a serious infection, let alone life-threatening sepsis or any other potentially fatal condition, if she receives proper treatment. … Rather, those doctors may believe that Idaho law requires them to try to delay delivery long enough to save the child’s life, unless PPROM becomes sufficiently “severe” to cause “infection and serious risk of sepsis.”
According to the Government’s experts, however, EMTALA requires a hospital to perform an abortion at the woman’s request whenever PPROM is diagnosed, even if the woman has not yet developed an infection or any other health complications. That is because, they assert, it can be “reasonably expected” that, in “the absence of immediate medical attention,” PPROM would “plac[e] the health” of the pregnant woman “in serious jeopardy” or cause “serious dysfunction” to her reproductive organs.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician who has delivered more than 5,000 babies and serves as vice president of medical affairs for the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, thinks Alito is mistaken both about some medical realities and the existence of a conflict between EMTALA and Idaho law. “If he’s actually saying that he thinks the government is saying that at 32 weeks we’re going to do an abortion, I think he misunderstands,” Skop told The Dispatch.

While Alito raises the specter of EMTALA guidance requiring some abortions at up to 34 weeks of pregnancy in cases of premature rupture of membranes, Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said EMTALA would be limited to a much smaller number of cases before viability. “There can be complications that happen after viability, but there, the standard of care is to deliver the baby if you need the pregnancy to end because it’s causing these severe health consequences for the mom,” Prelogar told the Supreme Court on April 24.

While Alito suggests federal EMTALA guidance could require abortion in up to 2 percent of pregnancies where water breaks before term, less than 0.3 percent of pregnant women experience PPROM before 25 weeks, and in only a fraction of cases before viability would a woman immediately opt for a termination of pregnancy.

“If my hospital routinely makes an attempt to save 22-weekers, and a woman comes in with PPROM at 21 and 2 [days] and no sign of infection, she’s highly likely to want expectant management, because if she can get five days, then then that neonatologist may be able to save her baby,” Skop said. A recent study in the British Journal of Medicine of PPROM before 23 weeks of pregnancy backs up that experience: While 30 percent of women whose water broke between 16 and 18 weeks of pregnancy chose termination of pregnancy without expectant management, that figure dropped to 3 percent when PPROM occurred between 22 and 23 weeks of pregnancy.

Skop thinks that in cases of pre-viable rupture of membranes, all state abortion “laws as written would allow that abortion to be performed.” She co-wrote a paper in July 2022 for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the largest pro-life group in America, making the same argument, and has urged state medical boards, health departments, and attorneys general to provide such guidance to hospitals. As soon as PPROM arises before viability, Skop says that qualifies as a life-threatening condition under the law because it’s hard to predict who will get very sick very fast. Sepsis following PPROM is the condition that injured Amanda Zurawski in Texas in 2022 and killed Savita Halappanavar in Ireland in 2012 (after doctors missed several signs that infection was present). The British Medical Journal study found that out of 364 women who developed PPROM before 23 weeks of pregnancy, “Five women became severely unwell with sepsis; two died and another three required care in the intensive treatment unit.” Idaho’s law thus allows immediate delivery in these cases because, as the state Supreme Court has ruled, “there is no ‘certain percent chance’ requirement that death will occur under the term ‘necessary’—and to impute one would only add an objective component to a wholly subjective defense.”

But the fact that Alito sees a potential conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s law should be another alarm for states that have failed to provide clarifying guidance to hospitals. After the 2022 Dobbs decision, there have been cases in multiple states with anti-abortion laws in which pregnant women experiencing PPROM a month or more before viability have been told that early delivery is not an option due to abortion law; in some cases hospitals have endangered women by sending them home without first admitting them for close monitoring, as is standard practice for expectant management. But only some states have provided clarifying guidance. The Texas Legislature (almost unanimously) voted in June 2023 to clarify PPROM falls under its exception. Before the Florida Heartbeat Act took effect in May, the state agency in charge of regulating hospitals issued guidance that “physicians in Florida should follow established standards of care regarding the most appropriate course of action for” treating women with premature rupture of membranes, and Nebraska did the same before the state passed a law limiting abortion.

“Does Idaho put out any kind of guidance?” Barrett asked Idaho Deputy Solicitor General Joshua Turner on April 24. Turner mainly pointed to the Idaho Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling. But if the state had provided hospitals the degree of clarity found in that ruling and its Supreme Court briefs two years ago, it might not be embroiled in this EMTALA lawsuit today.

Source link

Related Topics:abortion dobbs v. jackson Featured health care Idaho Supreme Court

Click to comment

Idaho

Idaho Stop ordinance seen as progress for cyclists, supporters say | Jefferson City News-Tribune

Published

34 minutes ago

May 10, 2026

Press Room

Idaho Stop ordinance seen as progress for cyclists, supporters say | Jefferson City News-Tribune

Jefferson City is on pace to see a nearly 65 percent increase in pedestrian and cyclist crashes in 2026 versus 2025, but a new ordinance passed Monday by the Jefferson City Council may help curb that trend.

The Jefferson City Council agreed to pass “Idaho Stop Laws” in Jefferson City, allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and stop lights as stop signs. The ordinance comes as Jefferson City has suffered 11 non-motorist crashes through the first four months of 2026, according to data provided by the Jefferson City Police Department in late April, including a fatal cyclist-car collision on April 21 that took the life of Richard Roebben.

The city saw a total of 20 non-motorist-involved crashes in 2025. At its current rate, it would see about 33 non-motorist-crashes by the end of 2026.

While some city officials are nervous about the new law and the learning curve for Jefferson City drivers, advocates told the News Tribune they believe it will make the city safer for cyclists and less frustrating for drivers.

Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Washington have all adopted laws allowing cyclists to yield at stop signs. Arkansas, Idaho and Oklahoma also have laws allowing cyclists to treat red stop lights as a stop sign.

Arkansas state Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, co-sponsored Arkansas’ Idaho Stop law when it passed in 2019. She said the law has benefits beyond increased pedestrian safety — it serves as a boon to Arkansas’ cycling tourism and engagement on natural cycling trails, a feature it shares with the Show Me State.

“We’ve seen just an incredible increase in cycling. I think it was just looking at what was happening in other states and working with … cyclist enthusiasts that really wanted to be proactive as possible,” Irvin said. “I think we were being more preemptive and just kind of following what other states have done in response so that we can be proactive in our approach.”

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data, bicyclist crashes in Idaho fell by 14.5 percent the year after the law’s adoption in 1982. Delaware in 2017 passed a law that includes the stop-sign-as-yield provision, but did not change rules for red lights. Bicycle crashes at stop-sign intersections in Delaware fell by 23 percent in the 30 months after its passage, according to the NHTSA.

Irvin added that the law is a boon for rural cyclists as well as city cyclists, allowing bike riders to roll through rural roads where motorists wouldn’t expect a cyclist, and spend less cumulative time in harm’s way.

Missouri law allows cyclists to proceed through an intersection with a red light if it’s clear that the traffic signal cannot detect the bicycle and therefore will not change unless there is more weight on the sensor.

The city ordinance states a cyclist may proceed through a stop sign after yielding to pedestrians and vehicles. A cyclist may also stop at a red light and then proceed through without waiting for a green light after yielding to pedestrians and vehicles.

Community feedback

The lone dissenting vote came from Ward 5 Councilman Shane Kampeter, who said he has concerns that drivers would not know about the new ordinance and thus result in more crashes. Lt. Jason Payne of the Jefferson City Police Department also voiced concerns about having more crashes for the same reason.

Andy Besselman, a local cyclist, submitted the original request to the city’s Transportation and Traffic Commission and said he doesn’t expect many drivers would even need to know about the new ordinance. He said cyclists typically only roll through stop signs if there are no vehicles around and added the goal of the ordinance was to eliminate any fear of receiving a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign.

In Besselman’s experience with other cyclists, he said, he doesn’t expect any cyclist to run a stop sign if there is a vehicle approaching.

“Rule No. 1: If there’s a car coming, don’t go,” Besselman said.

Since a cyclist is more vulnerable on the road than somebody in a vehicle, Besselman said most cyclists are already aware of their surroundings.

Besselman said a lot of cyclists have already been practicing the “Idaho Stop” for a while now anyway. Besselman bikes to work every morning and said it’s often safer to roll through an intersection if he knows there are no other vehicles approaching and there is no risk of being hit by a car.

He said he’s heard of other cyclists getting “rear-ended” by a vehicle after sitting at a stop sign and being unable to get back up to speed quick enough.

“So for me, it was always just personal safety,” Besselman said.

He added this ordinance should also keep traffic moving because drivers will not have to wait for the cyclist to get up to speed before proceeding themself.

He added that cyclists do not have to follow the Idaho Stop Law. If a cyclist is more comfortable coming to a complete stop at a stop sign and waiting for a green light, Besselman said, they should do what feels safest.

At the City Council meeting on May 4, Kampeter said he thinks people don’t actually know many of the laws governing cyclists on the road.

Nathan Nickolaus, interim city attorney, said drivers and cyclists should defer to Missouri’s driver’s manual. The 2025 “Driver Guide” from the Missouri Department of Revenue has a section on sharing the road with mopeds and bicycles. That section states crashes with bicyclists occur most often at intersections due to drivers not noticing the cyclist.

The guide states cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator, and that cyclists should ride with traffic and try to stay as close to the right side of the road as possible.

For drivers who want to pass a cyclist, the driver guide states motorists should give the cyclist a full lane width.

“Do not squeeze past these road users. The bicycle is generally a slow-moving vehicle and this may require you to slow down. Wait for a clear stretch of road before passing a cyclist in a lane too narrow to share,” reads the driver guide.

Besselman said drivers should treat cyclists like “any other vehicle,” and drivers should only pass cyclists if they would also pass a car in the same location.

The next step

The most awkward part of the ordinance, a pedestrian and cyclist safety advocate said, will be the limited scope of the law. If a cyclist were to leave Jefferson City limits, the law would no longer apply to them.

However, the Capital City can serve as a model and leader in bicyclist safety for the rest of state, said Jackson Hotaling, director of policy and programs with Missourians for Responsible Transportation, a non-motorist activist and advocacy group.

“We’re already seeing our bordering states starting to implement these laws,” Hotaling said. “Particularly in Arkansas, there’s so many people that are living right up on the border with Missouri. … A lot of folks on the Arkansas side are probably going to assume that exists within Missouri, and that’s up to the state of Missouri to respond accordingly.”

“I think that having the City of Jefferson’s ordinance as a model will be beneficial for other municipalities in the state,” he added. “… Ultimately, I think it could be a reasonable goal to look at this as an ordinance for the state of Missouri as well.”

Irvin, whose Senate district comprises the northern Ozark region of Arkansas, and thus shares many roads and cycling routes with the Southern region of Missouri, said she’d like to see the state work toward its own Idaho Stop law and was willing to work across state lines to help.

“If you’re trying to be more friendly towards cyclists and take advantage of these (shared) resources, then I think it’s just better to have some consistency with your laws,” Irvin said.

Irvin added that smaller cities would benefit greatly from countywide ordinances to ensure uniform laws across the area. The Cole County Traffic and Safety Advisory Board last met on April 30 and did not discuss any bike safety ordinances. It is slated to next meet on July 16, according to the Cole County website.

Even if neither the state nor the county follow up on Jefferson City’s ordinance, Hotaling said the passage of the law and the support of City Council represent meaningful progress for non-motorists in Jefferson City.

“I just want to applaud the City Council for making this consideration and taking it upon themselves to do the research to get there,” said Hotaling, who spends much of his time cycling in the city. “To be able to have a beautiful downtown and have place that’s enjoyable and safe to walk and bike around, I think it can really inspire a lot of folks in smaller towns and suburban areas to think about what that might look like when they do visit the Capitol.”

News Tribune file
From left, 15-year-old August Newlon and 17-year-old Finley Beyke check for traffic before crossing an intersection on Saturday, April 25, 2026, in downtown Jefferson City.

News Tribune file
Finley Beyke, 17, crosses an intersection Saturday, April 25, 2026, while traveling on High Street in Jefferson City. “I think they should put more bike lanes and more bike signs,” Beyke said about improving safety for cyclists. “There are a lot of cars that don’t care.” Beyke said his father was struck by a motorist while cycling.

Source link

Idaho

Day use state park fees waived for Idaho residents on July 4 to celebrate America250

Published

13 hours ago

May 9, 2026

Press Room

Day use state park fees waived for Idaho residents on July 4 to celebrate America250

BOISE, Idaho (Idaho Capital Sun) — Day use access fees at all Idaho state parks will be waived for Idaho residents on July 4 as part of a celebration of America’s 250th anniversary, Gov. Brad Little announced Friday, as reported by the Idaho Capital Sun.

“As we prepare to mark 250 years of American independence, there is no better way to celebrate than by getting outside with our loved ones and enjoying the freedoms and natural treasures that deﬁne our great nation,” Little said Friday. “Idaho’s state parks showcase the very best of our state, and we are proud to welcome families, friends and visitors to explore them free of charge during this special occasion.”

While day use fees for Idaho residents will be waived, normal camping and reservation fees will apply, officials said.

Idaho has 28 state parks, which offer a variety of recreational and outdoor activities including hiking, horseback riding, skiing, bird watching, rock climbing, fishing, boating, swimming, bicycling and more.

State officials with the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation are in the process of unveiling improvements and enhancements at several state parks, including Lucky Peak State Park outside of Boise, which recently opened a new dog beach and accessible kayak launch on the Boise River.

Other state parks include Bruneau Dunes State Park and Observatory, Harriman State Park, Bear Lake State Park and City of Rocks National Reserve, which is a national reserve and state park that attracts climbers from all over the world to its dramatic granite rock spires.

Little said the July 4 fee waiver is a part of a larger effort to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence being signed in 1776.

Source link

Idaho

Police Urge Public to Check Bank Statements for Boise-Area Fraud

Published

1 day ago

May 9, 2026

Press Room

Police Urge Public to Check Bank Statements for Boise-Area Fraud

We’re lucky to live in a place as safe as the Treasure Valley. Despite our growth, one of the things that makes our area so special is the way that we look out for one another–for our neighbors! That’s a principle that seems to have held on as Boise has boomed.

Despite low crime rates, there seems to always be one incident or so that makes us scratch our heads.

A recent string of fraud incidents in the Treasure Valley area is one of those.

Nampa Police initially warned the public of this because cases of fraud began to ‘mushroom’. Then, it took an interesting turn–people that HAD their credit cards were being ‘taken to the bank’, so to speak.

In a statement originally released on April 30th by the Nampa Police Department, officials advised the following:

We are not sure how the suspects are gaining access to the victim’s credit cards. There is a growing fraud scheme, “ghost tapping”, that scammers are using to access victims’ credit cards. This is possibly occurring in these instances. “Ghost tapping” uses stolen credit card details in Apple Pay or Google Pay, then remotely relays the tap signal over the internet to a ‘mule’ at a store, allowing them to make high-value purchases that appear completely legitimate. (We’ll share more information on ghost tapping in a later public service announcement that will also suggest ways to protect yourself.) The app used by these criminals obscures the actual credit card number, making it harder for investigators to link a victim to a particular crime. Keep in mind that victims still have their physical credit cards while suspects use the stolen card information to make purchases, which also affects how victims are alerted. So far, local investigators have not been able to identify a common theme among the victims (e.g., a specific bank, a website they visited, a gas pump they used, etc.) in the fraud cases we are investigating.

The investigation spans far and wide.

Authorities say that some suspects are in custody, others are being contacted, and others are still at large.

Now, a week later, the police are back to reaching out to the public–this time, urging people to check their bank accounts.

Nampa Police say that they have caught onto a pattern– there are fraudulent charges at Albertson’s to purchase gift cards, at Costco to purchase Apple products, and at Best Buy, also for Apple products.

Check those bank statements!