SCOTUS' Inaction on Idaho Abortion Law Exposes Judicial Avoidance, Endangers Health Protections
Washington, D.C. - Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), the nation’s largest community of attorneys committed to human rights and equal justice, finds the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse course on accepting Idaho’s petition for relief in Moyle v. United States absolutely necessary to restore Idahoans’ access to emergency healthcare in the short term, but woefully insufficient to protect the rights of millions of Americans under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). We call on the Court to use its authority to vindicate the supremacy of federal law over state abortion bans that restrict access to emergency care. The Court’s dismissal of the case as improvidently granted leaves pregnant people facing emergencies and the doctors who treat them in a precarious legal limbo and fails to contend with the very real harm created by the Court’s prior decision to allow Idaho to fully enforce its ban over EMTALA’s clear mandate.
The Court's ruling returns the issue to the lower courts, allowing emergency abortions to resume in the state, but failing to provide an answer to the critical questions raised in the litigation. Although the decision did not affirmatively greenlight Idaho’s backwards interpretation of EMTALA, it also did not confirm the reality that federally mandated emergency healthcare should not be held hostage by state-level restrictions.
““The Court majority’s decision to wish away the conflict between state and federal law presented by Idaho’s abortion ban is a deeply unethical avoidance of judicial responsibility. This procedural dodge leaves essential, long-established health protections in limbo, which is far from a victory for those advocating for reproductive rights and maternal health equity.””
““While the Court’s decision today does not take the extraordinary step of expressly allowing a draconian state abortion ban to override clear federal law, it is far from the vindication of the rights of pregnant people that is needed to safeguard access to critical life-saving emergency abortion care. The Court’s refusal to use its authority to reject states’ attempts to curtail basic liberties is not a victory but an abdication of judicial responsibility.””
Legal Basis and Broader Implications:
Today’s decision is neither for nor against Idaho. Instead, the Court removed the stay of the District Court’s opinion that it previously put into place and decided it should never have heard the case in the first place. The removal of this stay will allow emergency abortions to resume in the state, but it cannot remedy the very real harm created by its imposition in the first place. The Court’s decision to dismiss the case back to the lower courts also does not answer the critically important question of whether a state can turn well-established principles of preemption on their head and impose its own draconian abortion restrictions over the federally mandated provision of emergency healthcare. As long as this question remains unresolved, the rights of pregnant people continue to hang in the balance.
Response and Action Plan:
Shortly after the end of the court session, Lawyers for Good Government will host a “SCOTUS Wrapped” event to discuss the implications of the Court’s actions in Moyle and other crucial cases - we invite you to subscribe to get updates and stay informed.
We will also continue to work with healthcare providers and legal advocates to protect patients' rights nationwide. One way we support our partners is through our Policy Resource Hub for Reproductive Health, a vital, constantly updated tool for patients and providers to find legal guidance, up-to-date policy analysis, and advocacy tools aimed at navigating the evolving landscape of reproductive health laws. The Hub serves as a central platform for mobilizing grassroots support and equipping stakeholders with the information necessary to advocate for comprehensive reproductive healthcare access.