Idaho Hospitals Must Provide Emergency Abortions, for Now

UPDATE Jun 27, 2024 10:08 AM CDT

Hospitals in Idaho must provide emergency abortions, at least for the time being, based on a Supreme Court ruling released Thursday. The ruling is a procedural one that doesn't address key questions in the case, meaning it could end up back before the court again in the not-too-distant future, reports the AP. The court inadvertently posted an opinion on the case on Wednesday.

Jun 26, 2024 1:56 PM CDT

The Supreme Court is set to rule in favor of allowing abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho where the woman's life is not in danger, according to an opinion that a court official says was "inadvertently" posted online. Bloomberg Law spotted the ruling on the court's website. "The Court's Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court's website," Patricia McCabe, the court's public information officer, said in a statement to Bloomberg. "The Court's opinion in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States will be issued in due course."

• The case: The court heard arguments in April over a challenge to Idaho's strict abortion law, which states that doctors can only perform abortions when "necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman." It made no exceptions for cases where an abortion could prevent "serious harms" to a woman's health, including the loss of fertility. The Biden administration said it violated a law requiring hospitals accepting Medicaid to provide emergency abortion care when a woman's health is at risk.

• The ruling: According to Bloomberg, the decision was 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration, with Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissenting.
• 'Improvidently granted': A copy of the opinion shared by Bloomberg states that the court will dismiss the case as "improvidently granted," meaning it should not have been accepted, the Guardian reports. The ruling would reinstate a court order allowing Idaho hospitals to perform emergency abortions to avoid "serious harms" to a woman's health, but litigation would continue in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the AP reports. In January, the Supreme Court said Idaho could enforce the ban while it dealt with the case.
• 'Not a victory': In the document, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would not have dismissed the case, reports the Guardian. "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay," she wrote. "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."

The AP notes that since the decision hasn't officially been released, this may not be the court's final ruling. (More US Supreme Court stories.)