Moyle v. United States

Background

Idaho passed a law forbidding most abortions except when necessary to prevent a pregnant woman’s death. The Federal Government sued, saying a federal emergency-hospital law (EMTALA) requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide abortions in some emergency situations and thus preempts Idaho’s ban. A federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Idaho law in those emergency cases, and during that injunction women in Idaho were able to obtain emergency abortions. Idaho appealed and sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court; the Court initially stayed the injunction and took the case early.

Reasoning

After briefing and argument, the Court declined to decide the merits. The per curiam opinion dismissed the Court’s earlier decision to take the case before the appeals court had decided it (called certiorari before judgment) as improvidently granted and vacated the stays it had entered. Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Kagan (joined in parts by others) agreed with vacating the stay and emphasized that EMTALA can require emergency care in narrow situations and that the lower courts should proceed. Justice Barrett agreed the case is not ready for immediate Supreme Court review. Justice Jackson would have decided the merits and dissented in part. Justice Alito would have reached the merits and rejected the Government’s reading of EMTALA.

Real world impact

The Court’s action sends the dispute back to the lower courts and returns the district court’s injunction to effect, meaning Idaho cannot enforce its ban in the emergency situations covered by that injunction while litigation continues. The ruling is not a final decision on whether federal law preempts Idaho law; that central question will be resolved later by the courts below or in a future Supreme Court decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Concurring and dissenting opinions disagree sharply about whether EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in some emergencies and whether this Court should have decided that preemption question now.