Utah
How the SCOTUS ruling on Idaho’s emergency abortion ban will affect patient transfers to Utah
SALT LAKE CITY — The United States Supreme Court sidestepped a decision Thursday on whether federal law requires states to provide pregnancy terminations in medical emergencies even in cases where the procedure would otherwise be illegal.
Instead, the court’s opinion – which stems from Idaho’s near-total abortion ban – kicked the legal questions surfaced in the case back to the lower courts and reinstated a previous ruling that will allow doctors in the state to perform emergency abortions in the meantime.
That means women in Idaho are unlikely – at least for now – to be airlifted to nearby states like Utah for the procedure.
“After today, there will be a few months — maybe a few years — during which doctors may no longer need to airlift pregnant patients out of Idaho,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote of the decision’s impact, in an opinion that dissented in part and concurred in part with the broader court’s ruling.
But the dismissal of the case leaves open key legal questions and sets up the potential that the issue of emergency room abortion care will come to the court again in the future.
In her brief, Jackson was critical of the court’s indecision, arguing that the ruling represented “not a victory” for Idaho patients but a “delay” – and that doctors still face the difficult decision of “whether to provide emergency medical care in the midst of highly charged legal circumstances.”
Conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Jackson and her liberal colleagues, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in the 6-3 opinion, which was erroneously posted online Wednesday. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
In his opinion, Alito also argued that the legal questions in the case – which come as abortion has become a political flashpoint in the U.S. presidential election – should have been decided, saying it was as “ripe for decision as it will ever be.”
“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents,” he wrote.
Alito indicated that he would have ruled against the Biden administration’s interpretation that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospital emergency rooms that receive Medicare funding to provide treatment to people experiencing medical emergencies, supersedes Idaho’s abortion ban.
Idaho law allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy for any woman with emergency health complications who is clearly on the brink of death. But it’s quiet on the question of what to do when pregnancy complications put someone’s health at risk but don’t imminently risk her life.
Under threat of jail time and loss of their medical licenses, Idaho doctors said prior to Thursday’s ruling that they sometimes had no choice under such circumstances but to send a woman across state lines by helicopter or advise her to otherwise get to another state for treatment.
“Those transfers measure the difference between the life-threatening conditions Idaho will allow hospitals to treat and the health-threatening conditions it will not,” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion Thursday.
Some women were transferred to reliably blue states like Washington and Oregon. But Utah’s capital was “one of the places we’ll tend to call first,” Stacy Seyb, a physician specializing in maternal-fetal medicine at St. Luke’s Hospital in Boise, told FOX 13 earlier this year.
While abortion remains legal up to 18 weeks in Utah, a near-total ban is currently on hold pending a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court.
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, sponsored the abortion ban in the House and noted in a statement that “today’s Supreme Court ruling has no direct implications on Utah’s strong pro-life laws, including our trigger law.” “Utah will continue to stand up for policies that protect the unborn,” she added.
Thursday’s ruling does mean doctors in Idaho likely won’t have to airlift patients to Utah and other states, which Planned Parenthood Association of Utah Chief Corporate Affairs Office Shireen Ghorbani called a “small victory.”
“But what should have happened honestly is the Supreme Court should have said you have a right to emergency medical treatment, you’ve had that right for 40 years and you should have the right to an abortion if that is the appropriate medical care for the complication for the experience that you’re having,” she argued.
Regardless of the court’s decision, Ghorbani said she expects some Idaho women will still have to come to Utah for abortion care.
“Twenty two percent of their OBGYNs have left the state, they are running very low on specialists in maternal-fetal medicine,” Ghorbani noted. “That reality has now been created for people who live in Idaho. So there may still be people from Idaho who are seeking emergency medical care in Utah and this is what happens when we ring this bell.”
Recently released data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, showed that 7% of all abortions performed in the state last year were for non-residents coming to Utah from Idaho. The data showed some Utah women also traveled out of state in 2023, to both Nevada and Colorado.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Environmental Protection Agency awarded Utah and Salt Lake County a total of $3.5 million in grants to assess potentially polluted properties for eventual cleanup and redevelopment.
The agency announced a $2 million grant to Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality and $1.5 million to Salt Lake County to conduct environmental assessments and inventory brownfield sites for cleanup. Brownfields are sites that may be difficult to redevelop or expand because of “the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant,” according to the agency.
“These brownfields grants will help Utah communities clean up contaminated sites and unlock opportunities for redevelopment and investment,” EPA Regional Administrator Cyrus Western said in a news release announcing the grants earlier this week. “By transforming underused properties into community assets, EPA is helping create healthier neighborhoods and stronger local economies.”
The two grants awarded to Utah and Salt Lake County are among more than $248 million awarded to nearly 200 communities nationwide for brownfield assessment and cleanup. Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality plans to focus the resources on several areas in Ogden, Heber City and Fillmore, among others, according to Bill Rees, who leads Utah’s brownfield cleanup program.
“What we do is work to secure the funding and then begin to reach out to our communities across the state, say, ‘Listen, there’s opportunity to do some assessment work in your community if you’re interested,’ and then work with our rural partners, work with our urban partners to see if there are sites that will fit that bill,” he told KSL.
The state has received similar grants in the past, and Rees said the money can help local governments determine what to do with ailing properties such as old schools, hospitals or private property that have gone to waste.
“Is there asbestos in it, or is there hazardous material in it? Or could there be something that’s impacting the soil or the groundwater, and a policymaker needs to make a decision?” asked Rees. “Knowledge allows you to make good decisions.”
The $1.5 million awarded to Salt Lake County is the largest brownfields assessment grant the county has ever received, according to a county press release.
“This grant is a real win for our communities,” said Mayor Jenny Wilson. “This funding will let us do vital environmental work on a larger scale and in more neighborhoods. It reflects exactly the kind of partnership between local and federal government that gets results for residents.”
The county grant funds will be used to help create cleanup plans in three areas, including a vehicle storage yard in Salt Lake City’s Ballpark Neighborhood, a 4.26-acre vacant lot in Millcreek and a small commercial building in Magna that was damaged during an earthquake in March 2020, according to the EPA.
Contributing: Don Brinkherhoff
The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.
The National Weather Service in Salt Lake City issued red flag warning Friday morning as emergency workers continued to battle one of the state’s largest wildfires in its history.
The red flag warning, issued when critical fire warnings are occurring or imminent, was to be in place through midnight Saturday.
“This is the FIRST Particularly Dangerous Situation Red Flag Warning issued in NWS Salt Lake City history. This is an exceptionally rare event,” the federal agency said in its warning.
A map of the area under the warning covered much of central and southwest Utah, with an area of the southwest, central and southern mountains also outlined as “particularly dangerous red flag.”
The particularly dangerous area includes the Cottonwood Fire, near the town of Beaver, which started Monday and had grown to covering almost nearly 71,000 acres by Thursday, 15 News reported. The fire forced evacuations.
The NWS warned that gusty winds and dry conditions would lead to rapid fire growth.
Utah also was dealing with the Iron Fire, which started June 19, and nearly destroyed the town of Eureka. The fire was about 27% contained Friday morning.
The fire danger led Utah Gov. Spencer Cox to issue executive order restricting fireworks statewide during the July 4 holiday, which marks the nation’s 250th birthday this year. The ban is in effect through July 5.
“Nothing about this decision was easy,” Cox said in a statement issued by his office Thursday.
“This is unlike anything we’ve seen in recent memory. We’re seeing fires spread farther and faster under conditions that defy historical expectations” Jamie Barnes, Utah state forester and director of the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, added in the statement.
Cox allowed cities and local communities to set aside areas where fireworks could be safely used. The city of Provo announced it would enforce a citywide prohibition on fireworks and would not designate a safe area for fireworks.
“This year is different,” Provo Mayor Marsha Judkins said in a statement. “The wildfire danger facing our community is real, and protecting lives, homes, and our natural spaces must come first.”
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Earlier this month, 2News Investigates brought you a former inmate’s federal lawsuit alleging Utah Department of Corrections leaders failed to address reports of alleged sexual assault by correctional officers. Now, 2News Investigates examines another key claim in that lawsuit.
MORE: Federal lawsuit alleges Utah prison leaders covered up guards’ sexual assaults on inmates
The lawsuit alleges a mass cross-gender strip-search operation – women being viewed by men was intended to further silence female inmates.
Federal law generally prohibits cross-gender strip searches of female inmates except during emergencies or when conducted by medical personnel. UDC says that during body-search procedures, male correctional officers are not allowed in the immediate area and inmate privacy is maintained. Former inmates say that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Three former inmates agreed to speak with 2News Investigates but asked that their identities not be revealed.
“It was very traumatic.”
According to the lawsuit, on May 13, 2025, UDC carried out a large-scale operation known as a “reset” in women’s housing units at the Utah State Correctional Facility (USCF) in Salt Lake City.
Wendy: “They call it a reset. What do you call it?”
“A violation.”
“It’s like a rape.”
The lawsuit alleges UDC Deputy Warden Derick Zorn and Warden Sharon D’Amico directed the operation, along with more than a dozen members of the Critical Incident Response Team, or CIRT.
According to the plaintiffs, officers stormed dormitories, shouted profanities, and issued conflicting commands.
The women say and the lawsuit states they were ordered to pack their belongings into totes and change into state-issued uniforms in front of male CIRT officers. They were then marched to the Emerald Building for processing.
“It felt almost like we were at a concentration camp.”
The lawsuit alleges the women were required to undergo body scans and then strip completely naked. Plaintiffs claim they were ordered to lift their breasts, spread their buttocks, and cough while visible to male staff.
Women who were menstruating allegedly were instructed to remove menstrual products in full view of others.
“Just use one hand to remove it. Hold it up in front of you.”
“I felt really small and worthless.”
The lawsuit alleges some women were forced to hold soiled menstrual pads while performing physical maneuvers.
“I just did what I was told. I just wanted to get it over with.”
The plaintiffs also claim they were required to sit on toilets or squat to provide urine samples while completely naked and visible to male officers.
“It was humiliating. It was degrading.”
The lawsuit further alleges cell doors were left open, exposing naked women to other inmates and male staff.
An overhead observation booth with reflective glass overlooked the strip-search area. Plaintiffs say they observed movement inside and believed they were being watched from above.
The lawsuit alleges the female inmates were being watched from above during a mass strip search on May 13, 2025
“I could see in the overhead, the two-way mirror. There were multiple men walking around up there who had direct vision inside those cells.”
The lawsuit alleges Captain Jared Beers and Lieutenant Matthew Coombs were inside the booth and that Deputy Warden Derick Zorn observed women in various states of undress.
“I made eye contact with Officer Arroyo, and I also saw Deputy Zorn.”
“I knew if I could see the male officers, they could see me.”
One former inmate described the experience as state-sanctioned sexual violence.
“When that happens, and you’ve gone through the same kind of thing as a child, it’s very traumatic.”
The lawsuit alleges Warden D’Amico knew male officers were viewing naked female inmates and “ratified, condoned, and failed to stop it.”
An allegation in the lawsuit filed on May 15, 2026
“You’re pretty much a hostage.”
UDC Executive Director Jared Garcia declined repeated requests for an on-camera interview. A letter sent said:
“During the body search process in female living areas, male correctional officers are not allowed in the immediate area, and privacy is maintained. In general, resets are conducted routinely, according to UDC policy and under strict protocols designed to ensure safety while also preserving the privacy and dignity of incarcerated individuals.”
“The manner matters.”
Walter Mason represents the plaintiffs.
He told 2News Investigates, “The law protects inmates from being exposed to members of the opposite sex viewing their naked bodies unless there’s an emergency. Unless there’s what the law calls an exigent circumstance, the prison can take necessary actions to protect safety. There was no emergency. There was no exigency.”
UDC says the reset involved approximately 150 trained staff members and was conducted according to department policy.
UDC’s letter goes on to say:
“Every effort was made to treat belongings with care and document confiscated items appropriately. UDC stands by our methods and policies, which are intended to maintain the highest standards of integrity, safety, and efficiency during the reset process.”
Written response from the Utah Department of Corrections regarding 2News investigations
I asked UDC whether any exigent circumstances existed on May 13, 2025, during the reset operation.
The response:
“No exigent circumstances occurred on May 13, 2025.”
I also requested information about what items were confiscated. UDC said it could not provide a specific list.
Response to questions posed by 2News Investigates to UDC regarding mass strip search and if exigent circumstances existed that day
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and accuses the defendants, all supervisors, of participating in a “coordinated effort to humiliate, mock, and psychologically degrade the plaintiffs … operating with a brazen and intentional disregard for clearly established law, fueled by an institutional custom of impunity.”
_____
-
Detroit, MI5 minutes agoNo. 23 overall pick in the 2026 NHL draft | Detroit Red Wings
-
San Francisco, CA14 minutes agoSan Francisco Pride kicks off with rainbow lasers, ValQueeries celebrate at Valkyries Pride Night
-
Dallas, TX20 minutes agoHow to buy Egypt vs. Australia World Cup soccer tickets
-
Miami, FL27 minutes agoHelping Venezuela: Miami search-and-rescue team prepares to deploy
-
Boston, MA30 minutes agoHow to buy Paraguay vs. Germany 2026 World Cup tickets in Boston
-
Denver, CO35 minutes agoDenver Broncos Roster Breakdown: Center—The Depth Question
-
Seattle, WA42 minutes agoIran-Egypt: Seattle World Cup Pride match updates
-
San Diego, CA45 minutes agoPFL San Diego ‘McKee vs. Isbulaev’ play-by-play, results & round scoring
