The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that despite Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, doctors must, at least for now, be allowed to provide emergency abortions to comply with federal law that requires emergency rooms to provide “stable care” to abortion patients. patient.
In an unsigned opinion, the court held that writs of certiorari in two cases involving the law were “inadvertently granted” and vacated a stay granted by the court earlier this year. The matter will continue to be litigated on the merits in lower courts and may eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the court mistakenly posted the draft opinion on the court’s website and later deleted it. Thursday’s opinion appears to be very similar to the surprise draft, with the same results but without some passages from the earlier draft.
Two consolidated cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, gained national attention after the high court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
Scotts to hear arguments in Biden lawsuit ‘subverting states’ abortion rights’
Abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, June 24, 2022, in Washington, DC, United States. (Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanagh, agreed with the court’s highly unusual move “because of the number of these cases since the Court granted certiorari.” The format of the case has changed significantly”.
But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called the court’s ruling “puzzling.”
“Recognizing the flaws in the government’s theory and Idaho’s ‘extremely strong’ likelihood of success, this Court on January 5 stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. And, wisely or not, the Court also took the unusual step of Steps to Grant Certiorari Before Idaho Appeal Hearing Now, the Court has denied the writ and, worse yet, revoked the stay,” Alito wrote.
“This shift is confusing,” he continued. “Nothing legally relevant has happened since January 5. The fundamental question in this case—whether EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in certain circumstances—is a simple question of legal interpretation. The decision below raises it directly. This, and has been introduced and demonstrated in detail.
“In total, we had over 1,300 pages of briefings to help us, and we heard nearly two hours of arguments,” he added.
“Everything that has been said about the question of statutory interpretation has probably been said many times. This question is ripe for decision. It is clear that the courts have lost the will to decide simple but emotionally charged and highly political questions. The issues raised by this case It’s sad.
Supreme Court rules in abortion drug case, finds group does not have standing to challenge FDA approval
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito attend the private ceremony for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor before she retires in 2023 A public interment was held on December 18, 2016 in the lobby of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. (Jacqueline Martin-Poole/Getty Images)
Writing separately, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the court’s decision to lift the stay but disagreed with the court’s decision to dismiss the case, saying it was unwise.
“This months-long disaster was completely unnecessary. More importantly, it was a direct violation of federal law, which is supreme in our system of government,” Jackson wrote.
Key Supreme Court study in FDA abortion pill case retracted due to ‘partisan attack,’ author says
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Idaho’s new Pro-Life Act makes it a crime for any health care provider to perform an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother is dying.
this Ministry of Justice Argues the state’s laws don’t go far enough to allow abortion in more medical emergencies.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state, saying the federal Emergency Medical and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires health care providers to provide “stable care” (including abortion) to patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even though doing so might conflict with the state’s abortion restrictions.
The state argued that “interpreting EMTALA as a federal abortion authorization raises serious questions under the vital issues doctrine affecting Congress and this Court.” Supporters of the state’s abortion restrictions accused the Biden administration of “subverting states’ rights,” citing Dobb’s decision allows states to regulate abortion access.
