U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Biden’s Challenge to Idaho’s Abortion Ban

Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued a stay of a district court’s injunction against Idaho’s new law banning abortion. As we explained here, Idaho’s pro-life law provides, “Every 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 the abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger.

As we told you earlier, the Biden 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 minimizes risks to “the health of the unborn child.”

The district court judge enjoined Idaho’s law, accepting the Biden DOJ’s frivolous arguments and ignoring the controlling precedent from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Idaho appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the ACLJ joined in support. Less than two months later, the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the district court’s injunction.

Within days of the panel’s stay decision, the full Ninth Circuit (en banc court) took the rare step of vacating the Ninth Circuit panel’s stay opinion and granting en banc review even before the panel had issued its decision deciding all the legal issues. The en banc court substituted the unanimous panel opinion with a peremptory denial of the stay motion. The court gave no explanation for its extraordinary move, and four judges dissented. 

In a procedural move allowed under the Supreme Court’s rules, Idaho submitted an application for a stay of the injunction to Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case overruling Roe v. Wade and returning the issue of abortion to the states, not the federal government. Justice Kagan (who is the Justice assigned for such filings coming from the Ninth Circuit) referred the case to the entire Court, which reinstated the stay of the injunction. The Court also granted review on the merits and ordered that an expedited briefing schedule be set so that the case can be argued in April. In plain terms, this means that Idaho’s lifesaving law will remain in effect while the Supreme Court considers the case.

With your ongoing support, we have stood with the state of Idaho every step of the way. We will now prepare an amicus brief supporting Idaho’s pro-life law before the high Court.