WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday avoided a ruling on whether Idaho’s strict abortion law conflicts with a federal law that requires stabilization of care for emergency room patients, including pregnant women who suffer complications and may need of abortion.
The court rejected an appeal brought by Idaho officials, meaning a lower court ruling allowing doctors in the state to perform abortions in emergency situations remains in effect for now.
The decision, which leaves the legal question unresolved and has no impact on any other states, was widely expected after the Supreme Court inadvertently published a copy online on Wednesday.
The court could address the issue in a later case.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that the Justice Department will continue to press its interpretation of federal law in the ongoing litigation.
“Today’s order means that as we continue to litigate our case, women in Idaho will once again have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who objected to the court’s failure to decide the case, read her dissenting opinion from the court, a step judges generally only take when they are particularly unhappy with the outcome.
“There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now,” she wrote.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito agreed on that point in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and, notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Alito has indicated he would rule against the Biden administration, which argues that federal law requires abortion when a woman suffers from multiple health complications that are not necessarily life-threatening, despite Idaho’s strict ban.
“Here, no one who has any respect for legal language can plausibly say that the government’s interpretation is unambiguously correct,” he wrote.
A block of five conservative and liberal judges, however, voted against deciding the case.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “the shape of these cases has changed substantially” since the court agreed to hear the two intertwined appeals from the state and elected officials.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said Idaho’s arguments “never justified … our initial consideration of this dispute.”
The legal issue is important not only in Idaho, but also in other states that have enacted similar bans that abortion rights advocates say conflict with federal law because they do not include broad exceptions for the mother’s health.
But the court’s failure to issue a ruling means confusion remains over whether federal law trumps state bans. In Idaho, the state’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling will continue.
The litigation could become even more complicated if former President Donald Trump wins the election, as his administration could change its legal position and argue that federal law does not conflict with state abortion laws.
The federal government said several states would be affected if the court had issued a full ruling, while abortion opponents said a Biden administration victory would potentially affect as many as 22 states that have imposed abortion restrictions.
Idaho’s abortion ban was enacted in 2020, with a provision stating it would go into effect if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Wade, the 1973 decision that determined that women had the constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies.
The legislation, known as the Defense of Life Act, took effect in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
Idaho law says anyone who has an abortion is subject to criminal sanctions, including up to five years in prison. Healthcare professionals who violate the law may lose their professional licenses.
The federal government sued, leading a federal judge in August 2022 to block the state from enforcing provisions regarding medical care required by the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Employment Act, or EMTALA.
This 1986 law mandates that patients receive adequate emergency care. The Biden administration has argued that care should include abortion in certain situations where a woman’s health is in danger, even if death is not imminent.
The government and abortion advocacy groups have cited as examples women whose waters break early in pregnancy, putting them at risk of sepsis or hemorrhage.
Federal law applies to health care providers who receive federal funding under the Medicare program.
Idaho law includes an exception if the abortion is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman, although the scope of the exception has been hotly contested in litigation.
The Supreme Court in January allowed Idaho to enforce the provisions while also agreeing to hear oral arguments in the case. Other provisions of the ban are already in effect and are not affected by the court’s latest ruling.
By blocking parts of state law that conflict with federal law, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill described the state’s actions as putting doctors “in the horns of a dilemma.”
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals briefly suspended Winmill’s decision in September but later allowed it to take effect again, prompting state officials to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The emergency room dispute is one of two abortion cases the Supreme Court has considered this term, both of which arose after the 2022 decision to overturn Roe. In the other, the court rejected a challenge by anti-abortion doctors to the Food and Drug Administration’s lifting of restrictions on mifepristone, the drug most commonly used for medical abortions.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
