Supreme Court's EMTALA Case Dismissed Amid Confusion Over Idaho Law

In a recent report by CNN's Joan Biskupic, insights into the Supreme Court's deliberations on the case Moyle v. United States reveal a shift in the justices' initial stance regarding Idaho's Defense of Life Act and its implications under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The case questioned whether EMTALA preempts state laws that restrict abortion, but the justices ultimately dismissed it as improvidently granted, lifting a stay on a lower court's ruling against Idaho. Biskupic's analysis indicates that the justices faced significant confusion regarding the specifics of Idaho's law and the extent of EMTALA's preemption. This uncertainty led some justices to reconsider their initial belief that the case presented a straightforward legal question. Chief Justice Roberts notably refrained from assigning opinion-writing duties during the conference, suggesting a lack of consensus among the justices. The report highlights that the court's acceptance of the case was viewed as a "miscalculation," with Roberts reportedly swayed by Idaho's arguments that emergency rooms could become "federal abortion enclaves." A draft majority opinion was prepared, with justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Kagan, and Sotomayor in agreement, while dissenting opinions emerged from justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Justice Kagan, along with Sotomayor and Jackson, expressed that the court may have learned a valuable lesson from this experience, emphasizing the need for caution in accepting emergency petitions related to contentious issues like abortion.