Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine On Remand
- The Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rahimi was influenced by a reversal in the government's position regarding federal conscience laws.
- The Solicitor General previously argued that these laws did not exempt doctors from providing abortion care but has since changed its stance.
- Judge Ho's critique of the Supreme Court's oversight emphasizes the need for lower courts to address all claims presented.
The Fifth Circuit recently addressed the case of United States v. Rahimi, which was remanded from the Supreme Court. The panel noted that while the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, the lower court had applied existing precedent correctly at the time. The Solicitor General's change in position was pivotal, as it altered the legal landscape regarding federal conscience laws protecting doctors from being compelled to perform abortions. Previously, the government argued that these laws did not exempt doctors from providing necessary abortion care, but it has since shifted its stance, asserting that conscience objections are valid under EMTALA. Judge Ho highlighted that the reversal was largely due to this change in the government's position, which also occurred in another case, Moyle v. United States. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit's ruling did not consider a specific theory of standing related to aesthetic injury, which could have implications for jurisdictional arguments in similar cases. Judge Ho's willingness to critique the Supreme Court's decisions has drawn media attention, but it underscores the importance of lower courts in addressing unexamined claims and ensuring comprehensive legal discourse.