WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday avoided a ruling on whether Idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with a federal law that requires stabilizing treatment for emergency room patients, including pregnant women with complications who may require an abortion.
The court rejected the appeal by Idaho authorities, meaning that a lower court ruling allowing doctors within the state to perform abortions in emergency situations stays in effect for now.
The decision, which leaves the legal query unresolved and has no impact on other states, was widely expected after the Supreme Court on Wednesday unintentionally posted a replica online.
The court could revisit the problem in a later proceeding.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press release that the Justice Department will proceed to defend its interpretation of federal law in the continued litigation.
“Today's order means that while we continue to litigate our case, women in Idaho will once again have access to the emergency care they are entitled to under federal law,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who objected to the court's lack of decision, read her dissenting opinion from the bench, a step judges generally take only after they are particularly dissatisfied with the consequence.
“There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now,” she wrote.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito agreed with this point in a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and, most notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Alito announced that he would rule against the Biden administration, which argues that despite Idaho's strict ban, federal law requires abortions when a lady suffers from various health complications that usually are not necessarily immediately life-threatening.
“No one here who has even the slightest respect for the language of the law can credibly claim that the government's interpretation is unequivocally correct,” he wrote.
However, a bloc of 5 conservative and liberal justices voted against deciding the case.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “the shape of these cases has changed substantially” for the reason that court agreed to listen to the 2 related appeals from the state and elected officials.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said Idaho's arguments “never justified our early consideration of this dispute.”
The legal issue is relevant not only in Idaho, but in addition in other states which have passed similar bans, which abortion advocates say conflict with federal law because they don’t provide comprehensive exceptions to guard the mother's health.
But since the court didn’t rule, there stays uncertainty about whether federal law overrides state bans. In Idaho, the state's appeal of the lower court's ruling continues.
The legal battle could grow to be much more complicated if former President Donald Trump wins the election, because his administration could change its legal position and argue that federal law doesn’t conflict with state abortion laws.
The federal government said a handful of states could be affected if the court had issued a sweeping ruling, while anti-abortion activists said a Biden administration victory could potentially affect as many as 22 states which have enacted abortion restrictions.
Idaho's abortion ban was passed in 2020 with a provision saying it could go into effect if the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which found that ladies have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
The law, often called the Defense of Life Act, got here into force in 2022, when the Supreme Court rolled back Roe.
Under Idaho law, anyone who performs an abortion can face criminal prosecution, including as much as five years in prison. Health care professionals found to be violating the law can lose their license to practice.
The federal government filed suit, and in August 2022 a federal judge barred the state from enforcing medical care provisions required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
This 1986 law requires patients to receive appropriate emergency care. The Biden administration argued that care should include abortions in certain situations when a lady's health is in danger, even when death isn’t imminent.
The government and abortion advocacy groups cited examples of ladies whose waters rupture early in pregnancy, putting them in danger for sepsis or hemorrhage.
The federal law applies to health care providers who receive federal funds through the Medicare program.
Idaho law provides an exception when an abortion is essential to guard the lifetime of the pregnant woman, although the scope of that exception has been hotly contested in litigation.
The Supreme Court in January allowed Idaho is anticipated to implement the provisions while also holding oral arguments within the case. Other provisions of the ban are already in effect and usually are not affected by the court's recent decision.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill described the state's actions, which left doctors “with a dilemma” by blocking parts of the state law that conflict with federal law.
The ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco briefly stayed Winmill's ruling in September but later reinstated it, prompting state officials to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The emergency room dispute is considered one of two abortion cases the Supreme Court has heard this term. Both cases arose after the 2022 decision to overturn Roe. In the opposite case the court rejected a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion activists against the US Food and Drug Administration's lifting of restrictions on mifepristone, the drug mostly utilized in medical abortion.
image credit : www.cnbc.com