The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would dismiss a case regarding emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily opening the way for women in the state to access abortions if they pose a health risk.
The unsigned, one-sentence decision declared the case “lightly approved,” meaning a majority of justices have changed their mind about the need to hear the case now. The decision halts Idaho's near-total abortion ban and reinstates a lower court ruling that allowed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if necessary to protect the mother's health while the case works its way through the courts.
The ruling did not rule on the substance of the case, but was largely identical to a document that was briefly posted on the court's website the previous day and reported by Bloomberg. A court spokesman acknowledged Wednesday that the publishing department “inadvertently uploaded the document for a short period of time” and said a decision in the case would be issued in due course.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced the decision from the court, as is customary for unsigned opinions.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson read a dissent from the bench, disagreeing with parts of the court's decision and arguing the justices should have deliberated on the substance of the case — a rare move and a sign of deep disagreement.
The joint lawsuits, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, focus on whether federal laws aimed at ensuring emergency medical treatment for all patients supersede Idaho's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the nation, which bans abortion with almost no exceptions except when a woman's life is at risk.
The ruling was effectively 6-3, with the three conservative justices siding with the liberals but saying they would dismiss the case on separate documents and for different reasons.
The fight marked the first time the Supreme Court has addressed statewide abortion restrictions, many of which were quickly put into effect after the court struck down a constitutional right to an abortion two years ago.
The ruling delivered a temporary victory for the Biden administration, which has challenged state abortion bans and relied on federal law as one of the few but narrow tools to preserve access since overturning Roe v. Wade.
It was also the second victory for abortion rights in recent weeks, though it was a more modest one. Earlier this month, the court rejected a challenge to the long-standing approval of a widely used abortion pill, finding that the anti-abortion medical groups and physician umbrella groups that brought the suit did not have standing to be parties in the case. While the ruling upheld the availability of the abortion pill, the court did not rule on the merits of the case.
Still, as with the abortion pill, the case over emergency abortions, and fundamental questions of state and federal law, will likely continue to be heard in lower courts.
Abortion rights advocates welcomed the results but pointed out the possibility.
“We're relieved for now, but we're not celebrating,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding that “Women with serious pregnancy complications and the hospital staff who care for them need clarity now.”
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said at a news conference that he wasn't discouraged yet. “We remain confident that we will ultimately win this case,” he said, adding that the case or a similar one in Texas could return to the Supreme Court.
The decision, made just hours before the first presidential debate, underscores the importance of the upcoming election, in which the abortion issue remains a priority for both parties. Access to abortion is widely supported, and the issue has galvanized voters eager to overturn anti-abortion referendums at the ballot box.
In a statement, President Biden praised the court's decision.
“Today's Supreme Court order will ensure that Idaho women can get the emergency medical care they need while this case returns to the lower courts,” Biden said. “No woman should be denied care, made to wait until she is near death or forced to flee her home just to get the care she needs.”
Idaho had asked the justices to intervene after an 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the law. The justices agreed to hear the case and temporarily reinstated the ban.
Under Idaho law, abortion is illegal except in cases of incest, rape, a nonviable pregnancy or when “it is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Doctors who perform abortions can face criminal charges, prison time and loss of their medical licenses.
The Biden administration had argued that the ban conflicted with federal law, which should prevail. Idaho argued that the Biden administration improperly interpreted federal law to get around the state ban, effectively turning the hospitals into legal abortion facilities.
The liberal justices all wrote or joined in the concurring opinion, with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The remaining conservative justices, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.
In a partial concurring and partial dissenting opinion, Judge Jackson based his decision on the merits of the case and stated that the federal law at issue, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, preempts Idaho's strict ban.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her concurring opinion, said the practical result of the Court's decision would prevent a disastrous outcome.
He wrote that federal law “clearly requires” hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide any treatment necessary to stabilize patients, including pregnant women.
Judge Jackson agreed. The Court's decision to allow Idaho's abortion ban to stand temporarily resulted in “months of catastrophe” that could have been avoided, she wrote. Instead, she noted, “Idaho physicians were forced to either watch their patients suffer or arrange for them to be airlifted.”
She warned that dismissing the case was worrying and would only allow the court to “avoid issues it does not want to decide.”
“There is no good reason not to resolve this dispute now,” she wrote.
Justice Alito sided with Justice Jackson that the Court should have heard the merits of the case, but reached a different conclusion: Idaho's abortion ban applies to emergency room care, he wrote.
On the contrary, he added, federal law requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to “treat, not abort, the 'fetus.'”
He said he was disappointed by the court's lack of willingness to tackle a polarizing issue.
“This issue is more timely than ever to be decided,” Justice Alito wrote. “Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the simple but emotive and highly politicized issues that this case raises.”
Justice Barrett, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, appears to have offered something of a compromise.
The case should now be heard in a lower court, where a more complete picture of the facts may emerge, she wrote.
She added that Idaho's legal framework has “significantly changed twice” since the litigation began, leaving the parties' positions “at best unclear as to the scope of the dispute.”
Eileen Sullivan Contributed report.