The ACLJ Files Amicus Brief Asking Court of Appeals To Vacate Lower Court's Injunction of Idaho's Abortion Ban

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) just filed an amicus brief defending Idaho’s new law banning abortion. As we explained here, Idaho’s pro-life law provides that “[e]very person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion . . . commits the crime of criminal abortion.” The law imposes penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment and license suspension for medical professionals who perform or assist in performing an abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. It’s a bill that would save countless unborn lives.

As we told you earlier, Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the state of Idaho, claiming that Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funding to administer emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. The law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA’s sole purpose is to ensure that everyone who goes to an emergency room gets the health care they need regardless of whether they have health insurance. The law says nothing about abortion, but it does require hospitals to give pregnant mothers care that “stabiliz[es] the unborn child.”

Yet despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs that abortion is a state, not federal, matter, the DOJ unearthed a novel abortion mandate in EMTALA and claimed that EMTALA preempted Idaho’s law. The district court judge, appointed by President Clinton, bought DOJ’s arguments hook, line, and sinker. Ignoring controlling precedent from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court enjoined Idaho’s law.

Idaho appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the ACLJ joined in support. We argued in our brief that the DOJ lacked authority to sue the state of Idaho. “The federal government’s lawsuit is a transparent attempt to use [EMTALA] to coerce compliance with the administration’s preferred abortion policy by hauling a sovereign state into federal court seeking equitable relief for violations of EMTALA that may never occur.” We explained further that dismissal of the DOJ’s complaint is essential to preserving federalism because, otherwise, “there would be no limit on the federal government’s power to swoop into federal court for the purpose of dictating state policy.”

Not only does the DOJ’s lawsuit intrude on state powers, it also violates the separation of powers by intruding on Congress’s authority. In our system, Congress enacts federal laws and Congress has the authority to establish how those laws are enforced. When the DOJ decides it has the authority to enforce federal law in the manner of its choosing, it trespasses on Congress’s authority. Our brief states that the Constitution does “not provide for government by injunction in which the courts and the Executive Branch can make law without regard to the action of Congress.”

Because the case is on appeal from a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit has granted expedited review. We will support the state of Idaho every step of the way, even to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary.

With your ongoing support, we will continue the fight to protect and promote pro-life legislation in the states.