For a shocking second time in just over two years, draft documents for a significant Supreme Court case were leaked prematurely. This time, the leak came from the official Court website, where a document was posted previewing defeat for an Idaho law that the Biden Administration claimed would prevent emergency room physicians from performing abortions in most cases.
Bloomberg Law’s Discovery
Bloomberg Law captured a document posted inadvertently by the Supreme Court before it was removed. A spokesperson for the Court, Patricia McCabe, stated that the document was “inadvertently and briefly uploaded” to the website, but the ruling has still not been confirmed or released. Bloomberg published the document online.
Document Details and Justices’ Opinions
In the document released briefly and unintentionally by the Court, it appears that the Justices will permit emergency room physicians to perform abortions in specific situations, dismissing an appeal by the state of Idaho, which has more stringent provisions.
Court Poised to Reinstate Lower Court Order
Analysis of the document reveals that the court is posed to reinstate a lower court order that permits hospitals to perform emergency abortions. This would allow the case to continue in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and it would likely return to the Supreme Court in due course to be reviewed by the Justices on its merits.
Court Previously Permitted Idaho Law to Take Effect
Previously this year, the Court ordered that Idaho’s ban should be allowed to take effect. In the interim between January 2024 and today, several women have been airlifted out of Idaho to receive abortions in cases where the death of the mother was not imminent, but where it is routine practice to perform abortions to avoid infections and hemorrhages.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Opinion
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, penned an opinion, writing that she would dismiss the case and that the Supreme Court should have allowed an appeals court to review it before it reached the Supreme Court.
Dissenting Justices
The dissent included Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. They say that the Court should not have dismissed the case.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Opinion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her own opinion, stating her belief that the Court should have ruled on the case’s merits, as the questions would arise again soon. Justice Jackson wrote, “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Background and Implications
The ruling came after the Supreme Court allowed Idaho to fully enforce its abortion law in January while the lawsuit was under consideration. Most of Idaho’s law is fully in effect, but the court is specifically considering its application to the emergency room.
White House’s Stance
Specifically, the White House contends that Idaho’s abortion ban interferes with a federal law regulating emergency room treatments, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), and that EMTALA takes precedence over Idaho’s abortion ban.
Potential Case Dismissal
If the Court reinstates the decision of the lower court on the case, as it appears poised to do, the underlying question of EMTALA versus state abortion restrictions will not be resolved.
Legal Consequences for Physicians
Physicians who perform abortions in the state of Idaho are subject to the state laws, and violations of the law in question are subject to up to five years in prison and the loss of a professional license.
Biden Administration’s Legal Actions
Due to the gray area in the law as pertains to what constitutes emergency services that might result in elective abortion, the Biden Administration sued the state of Idaho in 2022 to prevent the state from enforcing the abortion ban in legal areas that EMTALA may cover.
Administration’s Broader Interpretation of EMTALA
The Administration’s view is that the 1986 EMTALA law should cover abortions even if the life of the mother is not in danger, but rather when a woman’s health is negatively impacted, broadly defined.
