Just one day after unintentionally publishing the opinion on their website and then removing it, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) formally decided this week that abortions may still be performed in Idaho in an emergency.
The top court’s decision ensures that Idaho doctors can temporarily perform emergency abortions, but it now sends the cases to a lower court for further review.
Prior to its removal this week, the court inadvertently published a draft of the opinion on its website.
The decision is based on the Moyle v. U.S. and Idaho v. U.S. cases, which gained widespread media coverage after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanagh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett all concurred in an accord that supported the Court’s extremely uncommon action because “the nature of these cases has dramatically transformed.”
But Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito referred to the Court’s ruling as “baffling.”
Understanding the shortcomings in the government’s argument and Idaho’s “high” chance of success, this Court on January 5 delayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Moreover, the Court, whether wisely or not, made the unprecedented move of granting certiorari prior to the Ninth Circuit hearing Idaho’s appeal. The Court has now dismissed the writ and, much worse, revoked the stay, according to Alito’s letter.
He went on, “This about-face is perplexing.” Nothing that is legally significant has happened since January 5. Furthermore, the fundamental question in this case is whether EMTALA compels hospitals to conduct abortions under specific conditions. It is a simple matter of law interpretation. It has been thoroughly briefed and argued, and the decision below clearly demonstrates it.
He said, “We heard nearly two hours of argument, and we have more than 1,300 pages of information to help us overall.”
It’s likely that everyone has already stated everything there is to say regarding the statutory interpretation issue. The time to make a decision on that matter is now greater than ever. It appears that the Court is merely incapable of reaching a decision on the case’s straightforward but intensely personal and contentious issue. That is unfortunate,” he remarked.
