Moyle v. United States Idaho v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued April 24, 2024 Decided June 27, 2024 | |
Full case name | Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. v. United States State of Idaho v. United States |
Docket nos. | 23-726 23-727 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
Case history | |
Prior | Preliminary injunction issued (D. Idaho Aug. 24, 2022); stay pending appeal granted (9th Cir. Sep. 28, 2023); stay vacated (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023); stay granted and certiorari before judgment granted (Jan. 5, 2024) |
Questions presented | |
Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho's Defense of Life Act. | |
Holding | |
The writs of certiorari before judgment are dismissed as improvidently granted, and the stays entered by the Court on January 5, 2024, are vacated. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Per curiam | |
Concurrence | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor; Jackson (Part II) |
Concurrence | Barrett, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh |
Concur/dissent | Jackson |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Thomas; Gorsuch (Parts I and II) |
Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether an Idaho abortion law conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The court initially agreed to expedite the appeal and temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban. After hearing the case, the court dismissed it as improvidently granted and restored a lower court order allowing emergency abortions under EMTALA. This returned the case to the lower courts without a ruling on the merits.
In 2020, Idaho passed a law criminalizing most abortions. The ban, Idaho Code 18-622, was a trigger law which would only take effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion it had announced in Roe v. Wade (1973). The Supreme Court did so in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , decided in June 2022, and Idaho's law was scheduled to take effect on August 25, 2022.
The Biden administration filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Idaho, arguing that the state law conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" for an "emergency medical condition". [1] According to the administration, and guidance it issued in July 2022 through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), EMTALA preempts state law that would prohibit such treatment. [2] They argued that abortions were necessary in certain emergency situations not allowed by Idaho law, which only provides exceptions when "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman", rape or incest, or an ectopic or molar pregnancy. [3] [4]
District judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. government, granting a preliminary injunction on August 24, 2022. [5] In September 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal, but the full court vacated the stay less than two weeks later. [6]
The full Circuit Court's order was challenged in the Supreme Court by both the state itself and the Idaho legislature, led by Mike Moyle, the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. In January 2024, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban, and agreed to review both petitions (consolidated under the Moyle v. United States case) on an expedited basis by granting certiorari before judgment. [8] [9] The Supreme Court's action occurred days after the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas' similar law against abortions under medical emergencies, citing that the HHS had overstepped its authority in requiring these abortions to take place under EMTALA. [2]
Oral arguments were held on April 24, 2024. Joshua Turner represented Moyle and Idaho, while U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar represented the federal government.
On June 26, the Supreme Court briefly posted and removed a draft of the decision on its website. The court's press office said that "the Court's Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court's website." [7]
The Court issued its per curiam opinion on June 27, 2024, dismissing its earlier decision to hear the case by certiorari before judgment as improvidently granted. The Court restored the lower-court order enjoining Idaho not to prevent hospitals from providing emergency abortions to protect against serious harm to the health of the mother. [10]
All nine justices wrote or joined separate opinions.
Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Jackson. In Kagan's view, the court never should have granted certiorari before judgment or a stay of the district court's order. She argued that Idaho law is preempted by federal law when "continuing a pregnancy does not put a woman's life in danger, but still places her at risk of grave health consequences, including loss of fertility". [10]
In Justice Barrett's concurrence, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh, she agreed that dismissing the case now was correct as new developments in the case had made it better to send the case back to the lower courts. Briefing and argument had shown that the extent of the parties' dispute was unclear, evolving, and narrower than it initially seemed. For example, the U.S. government told the court that mental health conditions never require abortions as stabilizing care, while Idaho told the court that abortions are permitted in all the medical conditions that the U.S. government had identified, even when the woman is not at "imminent" risk of death. Based on concessions like these, Barrett concluded that "even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho's ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact" – not enough to show that Idaho would be irreparably harmed. [10]
Justice Jackson agreed with the court's decision to allow emergency abortions by vacating the stay, but disagreed with the decision to dismiss as improvidently granted, which she saw as unnecessary and harmful delay. She would have ruled on the merits, in favor of the U.S. government. [10]
Justice Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and in part by Gorsuch, saying that the court should have decided the case on the merits now, in favor of Idaho. Alito focused on several parts of EMTALA referencing an "'unborn child'" to argue that it does not require abortions. He also argued that EMTALA's nature as Spending Clause legislation implies that it does not bind Idaho or preempt Idaho's criminal law. [10]
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital emergency departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) for anyone seeking treatment for a medical condition regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when the patient's condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Consuelo María Callahan is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Ronald Murray Gould is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1999.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.
The 2005 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 3, 2005, and concluded October 1, 2006. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down twelve per curiam opinions during its 2002 term, which began October 7, 2002 and concluded October 5, 2003.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.
The 2009 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.
Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–Jackson v. Abercrombie, and Sevcik v. Sandoval.
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.
The 2017 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
Eric David Miller is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), returning to individual states the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal statutory law.
The Texas Heartbeat Act, Senate Bill 8, is an act of the Texas Legislature that bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. The law took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers. It was the first time a state has successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely solely on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits, rather than having state officials enforce the law with criminal or civil penalties. The act authorizes members of the public to sue anyone who performs or facilitates an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, plus court costs and attorneys' fees.
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. Opponents stated that the Act went against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which, prior to its overturn in 2022, banned states from prohibiting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court. However, rather than resolving the questions presented, the Supreme Court dismissed review of the case as improvidently granted.
Text of Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. ___(2024) is available from: Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)