The Supreme Court delivered a win on abortion to the Biden administration on Thursday by nullifying an order that prevented the government from demanding Idaho allow the procedure in emergency situations despite a state law severely restricting abortions.
The justices decided they were premature in agreeing to hear the case because the facts were murky and needed more development in lower courts.
The ruling also exposed ongoing problems at the court. On Wednesday, a draft opinion was briefly posted to the court’s website, signaling what was to come.
It was the second time an abortion-related ruling leaked out of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s court. In 2022, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and authorized states to impose new restrictions on abortion was leaked weeks before the ruling was handed down.
Idaho was one of more than a dozen states that banned abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The Biden administration filed a lawsuit saying the conservative state’s full ban conflicted with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires states that accept federal health funds to provide necessary emergency care to stabilize patients.
Under that law, hospitals must deliver stabilizing treatment in emergencies — including abortions, the federal government argued.
The Biden administration says that means abortions must be performed when it’s deemed the correct course for the mother’s health.
A U.S. District Court judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Biden administration.
The Supreme Court ruling allowed that injunction to take effect.
The high court issued an unsigned opinion saying the case had been “improvidently granted,” meaning the court should not have taken it so soon.
The justices did not reach a decision on whether the Biden administration is right. That issue remains open for argument in this case. Others, including a case out of Texas, are going through lower courts.
The Supreme Court decided earlier this year to take up the case, which was rushed to the justices’ docket without going through the federal appellate court level with a final judgment.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, said the court made a “miscalculation” in speeding the case. She said the two sides’ positions “are still evolving.”
State decisions have clarified the scope of Idaho’s law, even as the federal government has said its understanding of the reach of the federal law is “more modest” than first argued, Justice Barrett said.
She said a new constitutional argument is brewing over whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which uses Congress’ spending power, holds the same supremacy over states as other federal laws.
“We should not jump ahead of the lower courts, particularly on an issue of such importance,” Justice Barrett wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee.
The court also divided over whether abortion counts as emergency care and what rights the unborn child has in the law.
“Far from requiring hospitals to perform abortions, EMTALA’s text unambiguously demands that Medicare-funded hospitals protect the health of both a pregnant woman and her ‘unborn child,’” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a George W. Bush appointee.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s three Democratic appointees, disagreed. She said the unborn language was added to make sure women received care in situations where their health was not in peril but the health of their fetus was.
“The amendment would likely have sparked far more opposition if it somehow tacitly withdrew EMTALA’s requirement that hospitals treat women who need an abortion to prevent death or serious harm,” wrote Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee.
She said occasions when the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act forces an abortion will be “rare.”
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said the justices would have to reach the underlying issue at some point. The way he read the opinions Thursday gave him hope that the state’s law would ultimately prevail.
“We feel good about where we sit today,” Mr. Labrador said.
He accused opponents of “trying to confuse doctors” about what the state’s law requires.
President Biden celebrated the ruling and complained about the state of abortion law after the Dobbs decision.
“No woman should be denied care, made to wait until she’s near death, or forced to flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” the president said in a statement. “Yet, this is exactly what is happening in states across the country since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.”
He said abortion will be an issue for voters in November’s elections.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.