Supreme Court Dismisses Idaho Abortion Case, Allowing Emergency Abortions to Continue
The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present.
Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Dismisses Certiorari in Idaho Abortion Law Case
The Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed the writs of certiorari in the cases of Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. v. United States and Idaho v. United States as improvidently granted. This dismissal came after the Court initially stayed a lower court's injunction, allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion law. The stays have now been vacated, reinstating the District Court’s preliminary injunction against Idaho’s abortion restrictions.
Background: Idaho’s Abortion Law vs. EMTALA
The Idaho law in question prohibits abortions unless necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, with no exceptions for preventing serious health harms. Before this law took effect, the Federal Government sued Idaho under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates Medicare-funded hospitals to provide necessary medical treatment in emergencies. The government argued that EMTALA preempts Idaho's law when an abortion is needed to prevent serious health risks to a pregnant woman.
District Court and Ninth Circuit Decisions
The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the Idaho law, on grounds that the Federal Government was likely to succeed in its argument that EMTALA preempts the state law. The Ninth Circuit declined to stay the injunction, but the Supreme Court initially granted Idaho's emergency application for a stay and took the unusual step of granting certiorari before the Ninth Circuit could hear the appeal.
Supreme Court’s Per Curiam Decision
The Supreme Court’s per curiam decision to dismiss the certiorari as improvidently granted effectively returns the case to the lower courts for further proceedings. With the stay dissolved, the preliminary injunction is back in effect, preventing Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban in cases where EMTALA mandates that abortions be provided to prevent serious health harms.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, concurred with the dismissal, emphasizing that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide necessary treatments, including abortions, to stabilize a patient's condition in emergencies. They argued that Idaho’s law, by prohibiting such abortions, conflicts with EMTALA and is therefore preempted.
Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, also concurred but focused on procedural concerns. They argued that the case's scope had changed significantly since the initial stay, and further proceedings in the lower courts were necessary to clarify the issues.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, asserting that the Court should have addressed the preemption issue directly. She criticized the majority for delaying resolution of the critical legal question, leaving pregnant women and healthcare providers in a state of uncertainty.
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented strongly. He argued that EMTALA does not require hospitals to perform abortions, emphasizing that the Act mandates the stabilization of both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. He criticized the majority for avoiding a straightforward legal question and vacating the stay, which he saw as allowing the enforcement of a misguided preliminary injunction.
Implications and Next Steps
The dismissal leaves the conflict between Idaho’s law and EMTALA unresolved at the Supreme Court level, sending the case back to the Ninth Circuit for a full hearing. In the interim, Idaho cannot enforce its abortion law in cases where EMTALA requires abortions to prevent serious health risks. The legal battle over the intersection of state abortion laws and federal emergency medical treatment requirements continues, with significant implications for both state sovereignty and federal healthcare mandates.
