[dc]I[/dc]n June, the Supreme Court reversed its grant of certiorari and decided not to hear a case involving a major conflict between federal and state abortion laws. In Moyle v. United States (No. 23–726), the dispute centers on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) overrides Idaho’s strict abortion law. EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay. In cases where a pregnant woman faces a serious health emergency, EMTALA mandates that hospitals provide treatment necessary to stabilize her condition. This can include performing an abortion if it is needed to protect her health, even if her life is not in immediate danger. However, Idaho’s abortion law is far more restrictive, allowing abortions only if the woman’s life is at risk, and not when the threat is merely to her health.
The conflict between the two laws led the federal government to sue Idaho, arguing that EMTALA preempts the state’s restrictive abortion law. A lower court agreed, issuing an injunction to prevent Idaho from enforcing its law in situations where EMTALA would require an abortion to stabilize a woman’s health. Idaho appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. Initially, the Court granted certiorari, indicating that it would hear the case. However, after further consideration, the Court decided to dismiss the writ as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices chose not to hear the case after all. This leaves the lower court’s injunction in place, meaning Idaho’s abortion law cannot be enforced in circumstances where EMTALA applies.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was met with disagreement from some of the justices. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that the Court should have resolved the issue. In his dissent, Justice Alito emphasized that EMTALA does not explicitly require hospitals to perform abortions and that the law mandates the protection of both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. He criticized the majority for avoiding what he saw as a straightforward issue of statutory interpretation. Alito also expressed concern that by not addressing the case now, the Court was allowing uncertainty to persist about how federal and state laws on abortion should be reconciled. He argued that Idaho had a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the federal government’s interpretation of EMTALA was flawed, particularly because the law never explicitly mentions abortion.
By declining to hear Moyle v. United States this term, the Supreme Court has left the issue unresolved for now, sending the case back to the lower courts to continue the legal battle. For the time being, hospitals in Idaho must follow EMTALA’s requirements, even if it means providing abortions in cases where the state’s law would otherwise prohibit them. This decision is one of several significant cases that the Supreme Court opted not to hear in the new term, leaving open questions about the future of abortion law in the post-Dobbs era.
TLDR: The Supreme Court has declined to hear Moyle v. United States (No. 23–726), a case involving the conflict between Idaho’s restrictive abortion law and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The case questions whether EMTALA, which requires hospitals to provide emergency care, including abortions to protect a woman’s health, preempts Idaho’s law allowing abortions only to prevent death. The Court’s decision leaves the lower court’s injunction in place, preventing Idaho from enforcing its law where it conflicts with EMTALA. Dissenting justices argued that the case presented important unresolved legal issues.