NEW: Supreme Court sides with Biden admin in Idaho abortion ruling

The Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling on Thursday morning in the cases of Moyle v US and Idaho v US, dismissing an appeal brought forth by Idaho officials regarding a lower court ruling that allows hospitals to perform emergency abortions. This comes after a version of the decision indicating a similar ruling was accidentally posted on Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court. The case was dismissed as "improvidently granted." 

"An Idaho law prohibits abortions unless necessary to prevent a pregnant women’s death; the law makes no exception for abortions necessary to prevent grave harms to the woman’s health, like the loss of her fertility," the decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, stated. 

The Supreme Court had issued a stay on Idaho’s abortion law before hearing arguments in the case, with Kagan stating that "the on-the-ground impact was immediate," and " the State’s largest provider of emergency services had to airlift pregnant women out of Idaho roughly every other week, compared to once in all of the prior year (when the injunction was in effect)." 

Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States were brought forth regarding Idaho’s abortion law. Under the law, exceptions are made for cases where abortion is "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman" or in situations of rape or incest. 

The Biden administration sued the state over the law, claiming that the legislation conflicts with federal requirements that hospitals must provide abortions in emergency cases and violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which states that any hospital that received federal funding must provide "necessary and stabilizing treatment" for "an emergency medical condition," including abortion. 

"I concur in the Court’s decision today to vacate its stay and dismiss the writ of certiorari before judgment as improvidently granted. I do so because Idaho’s arguments about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, either emergency relief or our early consideration of this dispute. With this Court’s writ of certiorari dismissed, the lower courts can proceed with this litigation in the regular course. And with this Court’s stay dissolved, the District Court’s preliminary injunction will again take effect. That will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to a woman’s health," Kagan wrote. 

The opinion did not address whether Idaho's law conflicted with the federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, who concurred in part and opposed in part, wrote in her opinion, "Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is 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." 

"This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price. Because we owe them—and the Nation—an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent," she added. 

Kagan noted that EMTALA "A requires a Medicare-funded hospital to offer an abortion when needed to stabilize a medical condition that seriously threatens a pregnant woman’s life or health," and that Idaho’s law allows abortions in cases where it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother.

"By their terms, the two laws differ. What falls in the gap between them are cases in which 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. In that situation, federal law requires a hospital to offer an abortion, whereas Idaho law prohibits that emergency care. And the record shows that, as a matter of medical reality, such cases exist."

"For example, when a woman comes to an emergency room with PPROM, the serious risk she faces may not be of death but of damage to her uterus, preventing her from having children in the future. Idaho has never suggested that its law would allow an abortion in those circumstances. That is why hospitals in Idaho have had to airlift medically fragile women to other States to receive abortions needed to prevent serious harms to their health."

She later added that "Given that conflict, I agree with the Court’s decision today to step back from its early intervention in this dispute. In the first stage of this suit, the District Court considered both sides’ medical evidence and entered a preliminary injunction against Idaho’s law on the ground of preemption."

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "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.’ And even if there were some ambiguity in the statutory text, we would be obligated to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the State because EMTALA was enacted under the Spending Clause, and as we have held time and again, conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous."

This is a breaking story. Please refresh the page for updates.