Idaho Asks US Supreme Court to Permit Abortion Law Enforcement

Idaho requested the US Supreme Court let it enforce a near-total abortion ban, pending appeal of a decision that found the ban makes it impossible for hospitals in the state to comply with a federal emergency care law.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador Monday filed an emergency application to stay an injunction that prevents the state from imposing penalties on physicians who perform abortions in emergency situations, except when necessary to save the pregnant person’s life.

The US didn’t show that it’s likely to succeed on a claim that the abortion law conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, Labrador said. It’s not impossible to comply with both laws because the emergency care law doesn’t require anything that Idaho law prohibits, he said.

The federal law was intended to prevent hospitals from dumping emergency room patients because they couldn’t pay. It requires facilities that receive money from federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, to screen patients for emergency medical conditions, and to stabilize such a condition before discharging or transferring the patient.

Shortly after the top court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a guidance document reminding hospitals that an abortion might be required to stabilize an emergency patient in some situations.

HHS sued Idaho, saying that the federal law preempted a state provision that had no emergency exception at the the time. Judge B. Lynn Winmill, of the US District Court for the District of Idaho, issued the injunction.

The state appealed, and a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lifted the injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit the granted full-court review and reinstated the injunction.

Meritless Premise

The federal government’s argument rests on the premise that EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in their emergency rooms when necessary to stabilize a patient’s emergency medical condition, Labrador said.

“That premise is meritless” because the law doesn’t even mention abortion, he said.

The federal emergency law, moreover, doesn’t regulate the practice of medicine or interfere with a state’s ability to regulate the way medical services are provided, Labrador said. Because such regulation falls within the state’s traditional police powers, EMTALA can’t be construed to require certain procedures that the state has outlawed, he said.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently heard oral arguments in a similar case. There, Texas and two groups of Christian providers sued HHS, alleging that the guidance unlawfully interfered with the state’s enforcement of its abortion laws.

The Idaho Attorney General’s Office, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, and Alliance Defending Freedom represent Idaho.

The case is Idaho v. United States, U.S., No. 23A470, application for emergency stay 11/20/23.