Supreme Court dismisses Idaho’s appeal of abortion ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that it improperly chose to review the appeal of a ruling that sided with Biden administration over the state of Idaho. The case concerns federal and state abortion laws. The Biden administration had sued Idaho, arguing state law protecting nearly all unborn babies from abortion conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part but also dissented in part.

What are the details here? Idaho’s Defense of Life Act was written to protect from abortion unborn babies except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The federal government says that policy prevents physicians at hospitals that accept federal funding from fulfilling EMTALA’s requirement to provide emergency abortions when a patient’s health, but not their life, is at risk. Idaho argued that its state law allowed for abortions in emergencies when the mother’s life is at risk.

What exactly did the court rule? The court ruled that it agreed to review the legal arguments in the case too early. It sent the case back down to the lower court level and restored a U.S. District Court order allowing doctors to perform emergency abortions when a woman’s health is at risk and not just her life.

What other opinions did the Court issue today? The Court rejected a bankruptcy settlement agreement that would have allowed the Sackler family, which owned OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma, to escape liability. After Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy five years ago, the Sacklers agreed to give more than $4 billion to communities, victims, and companies harmed by OxyContin. In exchange, the Sackler family would receive protection from future lawsuits related to the drug. The bankruptcy court approved that agreement. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, because the victims did not agree to that provision, it could not go into effect.

The high court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must pause enforcement of an air quality plan while several states sue the agency. The EPA sought to implement new rules requiring states to limit carbon dioxide emissions to increase the strength of the ozone layer. The rules would apply to just under two dozen states, but courts have kept the rules from applying to about half of those states. The remaining states still under enforcement sued and asked for an injunction preventing the EPA rules from going into effect during ongoing litigation. A Washington, D.C. district court refused that relief but the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling reversed that decision.

Lastly, the Supreme Court also ruled 6-3 that when the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, brings a civil lawsuit against an individual for securities fraud, it has to try those claims in court before a jury. Federal law had previously authorized the SEC to try defendants before itself and not in a court of law. The Supreme Court said that behavior violated the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guarantee of the right to a trial by jury.

Dig deeper: Listen to Leah Savas’ report on The World and Everything in It podcast about the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case.