Idaho abortion law stands, for now

For the first time since it ruled the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, the Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for an appellate court to strike down a state law protecting unborn babies—in this case, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.

While Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center, disagrees with the court’s decision, he doesn’t think the court’s ruling will have much of an effect for the time being.

“We don’t expect the abortion rate in Idaho to increase as a result of this ruling,” Conzatti told WORLD. “The ruling leaves in place most of the Defense of Life Act.”

Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion, or one attributed to the entire court and not a specific judge, in the case of Moyle v. United States. It told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reevaluate whether Idaho’s law conflicts with federal requirements.

Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, enacted in 2022, allows an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. But in all other circumstances, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The Biden administration argued that such a law conflicted with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The law requires emergency departments that receive Medicare payments to assess all patients and provide life-saving care regardless of someone’s ability to pay. It was enacted in the 1980s to fix the issue of “patient dumping,” a practice of refusing care to patients who could not afford it. In Moyle v. United States, the administration argued EMTALA’s requirements should extend to some abortions—even ones that weren’t immediately life-threatening—despite Idaho’s law.

In Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court declined to rule on whether EMTALA and the Idaho Defense of Life Act were at odds. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued an opinion concurring with the per curiam judgment, saying that the Supreme Court should have never taken up the case. In their view, the court should have waited for the 9th Circuit to complete its own deliberations. They also argued the case was not as pressing as both sides had made it out to be.

“A grant of certiorari before judgment presumes that further proceedings below are unnecessary to the court’s resolution of the question presented. That was a miscalculation in these cases, because the parties’ positions are still evolving,” Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, calling the decision “puzzling.”

“Having taken the unusual step of granting certiorari before Idaho’s appeal could be heard by the Ninth Circuit, the Court decides it does not want to tackle this case after all and thus returns the appeal to the Ninth Circuit,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

But it might not be long before the Supreme Court is forced to take up the case—or one like it. Last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of a Texas law that prevented doctors from conducting an emergency abortion if it violated their conscience. If the 9th Circuit rules against Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, the two decisions would be in conflict.

“We would anticipate that sooner rather than later,” Conzatti said. “The Supreme Court allows appellate rulings to stand unless there is a split circuit. That creates all sorts of legal problems that oftentimes demands Supreme Court review.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed a similar theme in her partial dissent on Thursday, noting that the issue would likely resurface.

“Storm clouds loom ahead,” Jackson wrote. “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.”