In a procedural decision, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to perform emergency abortions—for now. This decision, however, leaves many important questions unanswered and could lead to a retrial of the case before the conservative majority court in the future. The decision was made the day after a draft of the opinion was accidentally posted on the court’s website and quickly removed. However, Bloomberg News had already accessed it, and the final opinion appears to be closely aligned with the early draft.
The court’s previous ruling, which permitted Idaho’s abortion ban to take effect even in cases of medical emergency, was overturned by a vote of 6-3. The restricted order avoids a decision that could have gained political traction in an election year where abortion has become a highly charged issue. A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that approximately seven out of ten Americans support preserving access to abortions for patients who are suffering miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies.
The Biden administration had filed a lawsuit against Idaho to allow abortions in urgent situations when a woman’s life was in danger. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a concurrence signed by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stated that dismissing the case at this time is sensible because the nature of the dispute has evolved over the past few months. Barrett wrote, “I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” pointing to revisions Idaho made to its abortion ban and the Biden administration clarifying that its arguments were aimed at rare cases.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, argued that the court should decide now, stating that the earlier order forced Idaho doctors to watch as patients suffered or were airlifted out of state for care. “We had ample time to consider this issue,” she said, emphasizing her views by reading a summary of her opinion aloud in the courtroom. “Not doing anything is problematic for several reasons.”
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, also disagreed with the decision to dismiss the case now, but for different reasons. Joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, he suggested that the court should side with Idaho. He wrote, “Federal health care law conclusively shows that it does not require hospitals to perform abortions.”
The majority decision to dismiss the case leaves the central issues unresolved, meaning that the same justices who voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion could soon be considering again when doctors can provide abortion in medical emergencies.
The premature release marked the second time in two years that an abortion ruling was made public early, although under slightly different circumstances. The court’s landmark ruling ending the constitutional right to abortion was leaked to Politico. This ruling came in a case filed against Idaho by the Biden administration, which argued that doctors must be allowed to provide emergency abortions under federal law when a pregnant woman faces serious health risks.
President Joe Biden stated that the court’s order ensures that Idaho women can receive the care they need while the case continues. He said, “Doctors should be able to practice medicine. Patients should be able to get the care they need.”
Idaho, in response, argued that federal law does not mandate broader exceptions and that its legislation does allow an exception to save the life of a pregnant patient. Since the high court allowed the prohibition to take effect in January, doctors in Idaho have been forced to repeatedly transport pregnant patients to other states for emergency care because the legislation is unclear about when they can perform abortions in an emergency.
The majority of the judges upheld a previous court ruling that allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect the health of a pregnant patient, concluding that the court should not have intervened in the case so quickly. The opinion means the Idaho case will continue to play out in lower courts and could ultimately return to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t answer key questions about whether doctors can provide emergency abortions in other states, a pressing issue as most Republican-controlled states have moved to restrict the procedure in the two years since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade.
In a similar case, Texas also argued that federal health care law does not supersede a state ban on abortion, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans sided with the state. The Idaho ruling does not appear to affect that finding. The Biden administration has appealed the case in Texas, providing another avenue for the issue to reach the high court. The justices are unlikely to consider whether to take up the Texas case before the fall.
