The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed emergency abortions to proceed in Idaho for the time being, following an order issued by the justices on Thursday. This action leaves in place a federal judge’s injunction that temporarily blocks Idaho from enforcing its comprehensive abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA mandates hospitals receiving Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients with emergency medical conditions. For more details, see the original report here.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order came after the accidental early release of the opinion on their website. The justices dismissed the cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States as “improvidently granted,” meaning they will not rule on the merits of the dispute.
The order was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, with Kagan noting in her concurring opinion that Idaho’s enforcement of its abortion ban could severely impact women’s health. Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed dissenting views.
Justice Kagan highlighted the significant practical implications of allowing Idaho to enforce its abortion ban during ongoing litigation, pointing to instances of pregnant women being airlifted out of Idaho for emergency care. Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that Idaho’s law and the interpretation of EMTALA had evolved since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, suggesting no immediate need for the Court to intervene.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting from the decision to dismiss, believed the Court should address the conflict between EMTALA and state abortion laws, which could have broader implications as other states enact similar legislation. Jackson argued, “[t]oday’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.”
Justice Samuel Alito criticized the decision to dismiss the case, arguing EMTALA does not require hospitals to perform abortions and calling the Court’s dismissal an inexplicable reversal.
This development follows the Court’s decision two weeks prior, where they ruled that anti-abortion medical groups lacked standing to challenge expanded access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. For in-depth coverage, visit SCOTUSblog’s original post here.