SCOTUS Allows Idaho to Enforce Abortion Ban - For Now
New restrictions on abortion have sparked legal challenges across the U.S. since the Supreme Court overturned the precedent of Roe v. Wade in 2022's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. In Idaho, the dispute over whether the state government can enforce its near-total ban on abortions has brought the subject of abortion back in front of the Supreme Court. The Court has agreed to hear the case and has set aside a lower court ruling that had blocked Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban in certain situations.
Idaho legislators had passed abortion legislation known as a “trigger law" in 2020. The law had no legal effect at the time it was passed, but it included a clause that would give the restrictions legal effect within 30 days of a decision reversing Roe. The Department of Justice sued almost immediately to prevent Idaho's abortion ban from taking effect, arguing that a federal law requiring emergency care conflicted with Idaho's new restrictions on abortion.
The federal court ruled against Idaho and issued an injunction that would prevent the state from enforcing its abortion ban when abortions are medically necessary to protect the health of pregnant patients. Nearly a year later, state officials appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit and asked for a stay of the injunction.
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit left the district court's injunction in place while the appeal is decided. Dissatisfied, Idaho applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction, which had remained in place since August 24, 2022. Now, not only has the Supreme Court granted the stay, but it has also agreed to hear the substance of the case in April.
The Underlying Conflict of Federal and State Laws
In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, commonly known as EMTALA, which requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care to those in need. At the time of its passage, the right of a patient to choose an abortion was constitutionally protected across the U.S.
After the Supreme Court repudiated the precedent of Roe in the summer of 2022, and the right to choose an abortion was no longer constitutionally protected, Republican-controlled states rolled out strict bans on abortions, often with tough penalties for doctors who perform the procedure. However, doctors argue that termination of pregnancy is often necessary to treat serious medical conditions in pregnant patients, and the federal government argued this point in its suit challenging the application of Idaho's ban.
The district court in Idaho found that the state's abortion ban, if enforced, would restrict doctors from treating conditions that that seriously jeopardize a woman's health or cause serious impairment to bodily functions. These categories of procedures were not excluded from the scope of Idaho's abortion ban, which only allowed a narrow exception for “life-saving" care. The district court concluded that for doctors in these situations, “it is impossible to comply with both statutes."
As a result, the district court blocked enforcement of Idaho's abortion ban to the extent it conflicted with the federal requirements of EMTALA. According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is to be regarded be the supreme law of the land.
Idaho officials appealed the district court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit, but the squabble over the injunction has fast-tracked this issue to the nation's highest court. In its stay of injunction, Idaho asked, in the alternative, for a grant of certiorari before judgment. This means Idaho asked the Supreme Court to intervene at its discretion. In a rare move, the Supreme Court granted the request, effectively bypassing the Ninth Circuit.
Grant of Certiorari Should Prevent a Circuit Split
The Supreme Court's announcement is likely to have nationwide implications, and that might explain the rationale behind the move. It is possible that the Supreme Court agreed to place the Idaho case on the oral argument docket for April because an opposite result in a parallel case created a hazard of a circuit split.
Federal litigators brought a similar suit to challenge the enforcement of an abortion ban in Texas, again arguing that the scope of the ban conflicted with the obligations imposed on doctors under EMTALA. In that case, a Trump-appointed judge found no conflict between the state and federal laws and stated that the state's ban governed any situation with a potential conflict. Moreover, that district court repudiated the guidance provided by the Department of Health and Human Services that explicitly stated that an abortion may be required as part of the stabilizing care required by EMTALA.
That decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where a three-judge panel sided with Texas.Now, the resolution of the Idaho dispute could define the contours and scope of EMTALA in the context of care for pregnant people in Texas and other states with tough abortion laws. A decision from the highest court could effectively resolve the dispute all across the nation.
For now, in Idaho, officials can enforce the 2020 abortion ban regardless of any potential conflict with EMTALA – at least until the Supreme Court issues a final decision on the matter.
Related Resources:
- Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Ban (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (FindLaw's Federal Courts Blog)
- U.S, Constitution: Article VI and the Supremacy Clause (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
