Attorney General William Tong issued a statement today regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, where the Biden Administration had challenged Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The Supreme Court dismissed Idaho’s appeal in Moyle, which sought to overturn an injunction that renders unenforceable portions of Idaho’s abortion ban inconsistent with EMTALA requirements. Consequently, the Court lifted its temporary stay of that injunction.
“Today women in Idaho are safer because doctors can provide all necessary emergency medical care—including an abortion to protect the health of the woman,” said Attorney General Tong. He added, “This provides only a temporary reprieve for women in Idaho. The Court here had the opportunity to affirmatively protect the lives and health of women in the most severe of medical emergencies, and they failed.”
The Biden Administration argued that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicted with EMTALA, which mandates emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions. A federal district court agreed that pregnancy and miscarriage complications qualify as emergency medical conditions requiring time-sensitive stabilizing treatment, including abortion when medically indicated.
The majority of the Court agreed on dismissing the case but cited different reasons. Three justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, suggested sending the case back to the 9th Circuit due to changes in parties’ interpretation of Idaho law and EMTALA during this appeal's pendency. Two other justices argued against accepting this premature appeal because Idaho is unlikely to succeed in challenging EMTALA's requirement for an abortion to save a woman's health despite Idaho’s ban.
Justice Jackson asserted that EMTALA requires an emergency abortion to save both life and health, contrary to Idaho's exclusion of health as an exception. Conversely, three justices led by Justice Alito contended that EMTALA does not mandate abortions under any circumstances and even if it did, Idaho is not bound by it.
The 9th Circuit will now address the issue avoided by today's decision. This matter may return to the Supreme Court either after further development or through a similar future case.
As Justice Jackson noted, “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.”