If I Understand Correctly…

In other words, the district court’s injunction will go back into effect (allowing emergency abortions in Idaho), and the case will take the normal course through the appeals courts before coming back to #SCOTUS.

Maybe they shouldn’t have rushed it?? https://t.co/ekC5TzVz4p

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 26, 2024

The District Court ruling raised Idaho to the status of Texas: abortion for “emergencies,” but what is an emergency?

Bloomberg releases more details from the EMTALA opinion: A 6–3 vote, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting. Justice Jackson writes that dismissing the case without a decision "is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho." https://t.co/cNEstODX9o pic.twitter.com/FanPjaswNf

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 26, 2024

“Serious harms” may be slightly more generous than “life of the mother is at risk,” but clearl definitions are still needed. The Texas Medical Board has refused to provide any guidelines on how to determine if the abortion is necessary for the “life of the mother,” the statutory standard in Texas. I would remind you a pregnant woman was septic and still had to leave the state for an abortion. Because of the delays, she’s now incapable of pregnancy ever again.

But hey, she’s alive, right?

What circumstances make abortion legal depend entirely on 12 jurors and the DA who brings the criminal charges.  OB/GYNs in Texas face a “damned if you/damned if you don’t” choice. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the number of practitioners diminishing sharply.

Is Idaho simply rising to the level of Texas? I wouldn’t call that a “rise” at all.

ADDING:

I stand corrected. Idaho abortion law already matches Texas law on the “life of the mother” exclusion.

"If the DIG order is the final decision, then what happens next is this case goes back to the en banc 9th Circuit, which will likely affirm the district court's finding that EMTALA trumps Idaho's ban," he explained. "Idaho could try again to get this SCOTUS to review, but see current gridlock."

EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The trial court issued an injunction to apply the standards of the Act. However:

Re EMTALA decision, remember that the Court allowing litigation to unfold in Idaho (good bc of injunction) also essentially allows a bad 5CA order holding that EMTALA does NOT preempt Tx’s abortion ban to stay in place. Given the populations in TX vs ID, that’s not a win.

— Greer Donley (@GreerDonley) June 26, 2024

One step forward, two steps back.  EMTALA is a law from 1986. The Supremes are basically refusing to deal with it. This decision will leave a conflict in the districts, classically a reason for the Court to rule.

But the women in those states can wait, right?