On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed Moyle v. United States as improvidently granted. Accordingly, the Court vacated the stay against the preliminary injunction, which blocks Idaho from fully enforcing its pro-life law.1
Read AUL’s Full Analysis of Moyle v. United States
The case presented the issue of whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”)2 requires emergency rooms to perform “stabilizing” abortions in certain circumstances, and thus, preempts pro-life state laws. The Court’s decision was fragmented, and although some Justices opined on the merits, the statutory interpretation issue remains open. Yet, litigation will continue in the Idaho case, as well as in a Texas case3 that challenges the EMTALA abortion mandate.
The Argument Against Emergency Room Abortion Mandates Isn’t Over
AUL filed an amici brief in this case on behalf of 121 Members of Congress opposing HHS’ EMTALA abortion mandate. Our brief argued that HHS’ new interpretation of EMTALA contradicts Congress’ original intent in passing EMTALA, which was to prevent patient dumping of women in active labor as well as protect unborn children in emergency medical situations.
Given the controversial nature of abortion and the important federal question raised, it is likely that the EMTALA abortion mandate issue will return to the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future, whether in Moyle v. United States or Texas v. Becerra.
Per Curiam Opinion
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted. Accordingly, the Court vacated the stays entered by the Court, which allows the preliminary injunction to go back into effect against Idaho’s pro-life law. Litigation will continue in the Ninth Circuit following this decision.
