WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling on whether Idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with a federal law that requires stabilizing care for emergency room patients, including pregnant women who suffer complications that may require abortions. .
The court dismissed an appeal 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 posted a copy online on Wednesday.
The court could address the issue in a later case.
The case centers on whether an exception in Idaho law that allows abortions when the pregnant woman's life is in danger already allows the type of treatment required by federal law.
The Biden administration argues that state law would not allow abortions when a woman suffers various health complications that are not necessarily immediately life-threatening.
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 rule means confusion remains over whether federal law trumps state bans. In Idaho, the state's appeal of the lower court 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 the federal law does not conflict with state abortion laws.
The federal government said a handful of states would be affected if the court had issued a full ruling, while abortion opponents said a Biden administration victory would potentially affect up to 22 states that have imposed abortion restrictions.
Idaho's abortion ban was enacted in 2020, with a provision stating that it would go into effect if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that found women had the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
The legislation, known as the Defense of Life Act, went into effect in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
Idaho law says anyone who performs an abortion is subject to criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison. Health care professionals found to have violated the law may lose their professional licenses.
The federal government sued, prompting a federal judge in August 2022 to block the state from enforcing provisions regarding required medical care under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.
That 1986 law requires that patients receive proper care in the emergency room. The Biden administration argued that care should include abortions in certain situations where the woman's health is in danger, even if death is not imminent.
The government and pro-abortion groups cited as examples women whose water breaks early in pregnancy, putting them at risk of sepsis or hemorrhage.
Federal law applies to health care providers who receive federal funds under the Medicare program.
Idaho law includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman, although the scope of the exception was strongly contested in the litigation.
In January, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho to enforce the provisions and agreed 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 decision.
In 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 “on the horns of a dilemma.”
The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit briefly stayed Winmill's ruling 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 considered this term, and both arose in the wake of the 2022 decision to overturn Roe. In the other, the court rejected a challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors to the Food and Drug Administration's lifting of restrictions on mifepristone, the drug most commonly used for medication abortions.
