The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that, at least for now, Idaho doctors should be allowed to perform emergency abortions to comply with a federal law that requires emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing care” to seriously ill patients, despite the state’s near-total ban on abortions.
In an unsigned opinion, the court found that appeals orders in two cases involving the law were “improperly issued” and voided stays issued by the court earlier this year.
The consolidated cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, attracted national attention following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, voted in favor of the Supreme Court’s highly unusual step because “the landscape of these cases has changed significantly since the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.”
But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called the Supreme Court’s decision “puzzling.”
Supreme Court to hear arguments in Biden lawsuit that ‘violates states’ rights’ on abortion
Pro-abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, United States, Friday, June 24, 2022. (Ting Sheng/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“Recognizing the flaws in the Government’s theory and the likelihood that Idaho would prevail, on January 5, this Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. And, wisely or not, this Court also took the unusual step of granting leave to appeal Idaho’s appeal before it had been heard by the Ninth Circuit. Now, the Court has denied the writ and, worse yet, vacated the injunction,” Justice Alito wrote.
“This policy reversal is puzzling,” he continued. “Nothing of legal importance has occurred since January 5th. And the issue at the heart of this case – whether EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions under certain circumstances – is a question of statutory interpretation that has been clearly articulated in lower court decisions and thoroughly explained and argued.”
“In total, the report was over 1,300 pages long and we heard nearly two hours of arguments,” he added.
“What needs to be said about the issue of statutory interpretation has probably been said many times before. The issue needs to be decided now more than ever. Clearly, the Supreme Court has simply lost the will to decide the simple but emotive and highly politicized issue that this case raises. That’s a shame,” he said.
Supreme Court rules in abortion pill case, finding groups lack authority to challenge FDA approval
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito attend a private ceremony prior to the public laying to rest for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court on December 18, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Jacqueline Martin-Poole/Getty Images)
In a separate opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the injunction but dissented from its decision to dismiss the case, calling it an imprudent grant.
“These past months of debacle were entirely unnecessary and, more importantly, a direct violation of federal law, the supreme power in our political system,” Jackson wrote.
Key study in Supreme Court FDA abortion drug case was retracted due to ‘partisan attacks,’ authors say
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Idaho’s new defense-of-life law criminalizes abortion by any medical provider except in cases of rape, incest or endangering the mother’s life.
of Department of Justice They argued that state law does not go far enough to allow abortions in more urgent medical circumstances.
Click here to get the FOX News app
The Department of Justice sued the states, arguing that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires health care providers to provide patients with “stabilizing treatment” (which includes abortions) if it is necessary to treat an emergency medical condition, even if that treatment may conflict with state abortion restrictions.
The state argued that “interpreting EMTALA as a federal mandate for abortion raises significant questions under primary issue doctrines affecting both Congress and this Court.” Supporters of state abortion restrictions have cited the Dobbs decision, which allows states to regulate abortion access, and accused the Biden administration of “subverting states’ rights.”
