WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling on whether Idaho’s strict abortion law conflicts with federal law requiring the stabilization of care for emergency room patients, including those with complications that may require abortion. Pregnant woman.
The court rejected an appeal by Idaho officials, meaning a lower court ruling allowing doctors in the state to perform abortions in emergencies remains in effect.
The decision leaves the legal question unresolved and has no impact on any other states, and was widely expected following Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling Posted by accident Online copy.
The court may consider this issue in a future case.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that the Justice Department will continue to push for an interpretation of federal law in ongoing litigation.
“Today’s order means that while we continue our litigation, women in Idaho will once again have access to emergency care guaranteed by federal law,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented from the court’s failure to rule in the case, read her dissent from the bench, which a justice usually does only when she is particularly dissatisfied with the outcome. steps to take.
“There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now,” she wrote.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito agreed in a dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and, primarily, Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Alito said he would rule against the Biden administration, which argued that despite Idaho’s strict ban, when a woman suffers from a variety of health complications that are not necessarily immediately life-threatening , federal law requires abortion.
“Here, no one with respect for statutory language can plausibly say that the government’s interpretation is unquestionably correct,” he wrote.
However, a five-member coalition of conservative and liberal judges voted against ruling in the case.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “the shape of these cases has changed significantly” since the court agreed to hear two related appeals from states and elected officials.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said Idaho’s arguments “never justified … our early consideration of this dispute.”
The legal issue is important not only in Idaho but also in other states, which have enacted similar bans that abortion rights advocates say conflict with federal law because they do not include concerns about the mother’s health. Broad exceptions.
But the court’s failure to rule means there remains confusion over whether federal law trumps state bans. In Idaho, the state’s appeal of the lower court ruling will continue.
The lawsuit could become more complicated if former President Donald Trump wins the election, as his administration could change its legal position and argue that federal law does not conflict with state abortion laws.
The federal government says a handful of states would be affected if the court makes a sweeping ruling, while abortion opponents say a Biden administration win could affect as many as 22 states with abortion restrictions in place.
Idaho’s abortion ban, enacted in 2020, includes a provision that would go into effect if the Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that found women have constitutional rights Termination of pregnancy.
The legislation is called the Protect Life Act, In force 2022, Supreme Court rollback roe.
Idaho law imposes criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison, on anyone who performs an abortion. Healthcare professionals found to have violated the law may have their professional license revoked.
The federal government filed a lawsuit that led a federal judge in August 2022 to block the state from enforcing provisions regarding medical care required by the federal Emergency Medical and Labor Act (EMTALA).
The 1986 law requires patients to receive appropriate emergency room care. The Biden administration believes that when a woman’s health is at risk, care should include abortion in some cases, even if death is not imminent.
The government and abortion rights groups cited examples of women whose waters broke early in pregnancy, putting them at risk of sepsis or bleeding.
Federal law applies to health care providers who receive federal funding under the Medicare program.
Idaho law provides an exception if an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman, although the scope of that exception has been hotly contested in litigation.
supreme court january allow Idaho enforces these provisions and also agrees to hear oral arguments in the case. Other provisions of the ban are already in effect and are not affected by the latest court ruling.
U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the state’s action blocked parts of the state law that conflicted with federal law, leaving doctors “in a difficult position.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco briefly put Winmill’s ruling on hold in September but later allowed it to come back into effect, prompting state officials to approach the Supreme Court.
The emergency room dispute is one of two abortion cases before the Supreme Court this semester, both following the 2022 decision that overturned Roe. on the other hand, The court rejected Anti-abortion doctors have challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s removal of restrictions on mifepristone, the drug most commonly used for medical abortions.
About The Author
