The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Pasadena, California Tuesday in a lawsuit brought against the state of Idaho by the federal government.
The case centers around whether or not the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA conflicts with Idaho’s abortion ban.
The lawsuit dates back to 2022 when the federal government sued Idaho after it banned almost all abortions, with narrow exceptions for rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger. EMTALA requires hospitals that receive federal funds to provide “stabilizing care,” which plaintiffs say can include abortions.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from plaintiffs and defendants, who disagreed on the definition of “stabilizing care” and the boundaries of state rights. Federal attorneys argued EMTALA guarantees women can receive medical treatments regardless of Idaho’s ban. Defendants said EMTALA did not require states to become “abortion enclaves.”
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated an injunction preventing the ban from applying to emergency situations. The justices did not however rule on the case overall, saying the court shouldn’t have taken on the appeal in the first place. The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court instead, which heard arguments Tuesday.
The state asked for the injunction to be lifted while the case continues to make its way through the court.
Speaking on behalf of Idaho, Attorney John Bursch said the federal government could not preempt state law by paying private parties to violate it.
“When you consider the irreparable harm to Idaho of having its law enjoined every day, as well as to the harm to mothers and unborn children who are not being protected the way Idaho's law intends,” he said to the Pasadena court, “I don't think we can afford to delay to go back to the district court.”
U.S. Attorney for the plaintiffs Catherine Carroll said EMTALA does not conflict with state law in most instances, but does in narrow and critical cases.
“The definition of stabilizing care and the obligation to provide it are not defined by reference to state law. They're defined by reference to the physician and the hospital's reasonable medical judgment,” Carroll said.
Each side was given roughly 30 minutes to make their case while judges asked clarifying questions. The court did not immediately issue a ruling.
