The Trump administration has moved to drop a Biden-era lawsuit against Idaho for a state law that bans abortion in nearly all circumstances.
Under former President Joe Biden, the federal government sued Idaho, claiming that its abortion ban violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
A stipulation of dismissal filed on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Southern Division, stated that both parties “stipulate to the dismissal, without prejudice, of all of the United States’ claims in this action, each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
“Thus, the Court’s preliminary injunction in this matter … is dissolved,” read the court document. “The district court loses jurisdiction upon this stipulation’s filing.”
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador released a statement Wednesday celebrating the dismissal, saying, “there is no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.”
“The goal of each is to save lives in every circumstance, both the mother and their unborn child,” stated Labrador. “We are grateful that meddlesome DOJ litigation on this issue will no longer be an obstacle to Idaho enforcing its laws. Idaho will continue defending life as intended by the legislature and our people.”
Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer for the American Civil Liberties Union, released a statement denouncing the dismissal, claiming that the Trump administration “would let women die rather than get an abortion.”
“Trump has sided with a radical fringe position that would put doctors who act to save the lives of their patients in jail and supports letting women die rather than access abortion,” Schifeling argued.
“The ACLU will continue to fight at the ballot box, in the courts, and in the streets across the nation to guarantee the fundamental rights of all Americans, including accessing emergency medical care.”
Litigation over the state law continues, however, as the St. Luke’s hospital system that brought a lawsuit earlier this year secured a temporary restraining order to guarantee their ability to perform emergency abortions, CNN reported.
In July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance stating that EMTALA required hospital emergency staff to perform abortions.
The Biden Department of Justice sued Idaho over its abortion ban, which only allowed the procedure if a mother was facing a medical emergency, citing EMTALA as a justification.
In September 2023, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Idaho, overturning a lower court decision in favor of the HHS guidance.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in April of 2024, with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar rejecting the claim that the case was about abortion bans in general.
“Even states that have sharply restricted access to abortion after Dobbs generally allow exceptions to safeguard the mother’s health,” Prelogar said. “But Idaho makes termination a felony punishable by years of imprisonment unless it is necessary to prevent the woman’s death.”
In June of last year, the Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam opinion in the case, concluding that it had been “improvidently granted,” meaning that the high court should not have heard arguments.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion, being joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing that “the shape of these cases has substantially shifted since we granted certiorari.”
“The parties dispute whether EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions — or any other treatment forbidden by state law — as necessary stabilizing care. They also disagree about whether EMTALA, as a statute enacted under Congress’ spending power and that operates on private parties, can preempt state law (an issue aired for the first time in this Court),” she wrote.
“In my judgment, it would be imprudent to answer these important questions now. Since this suit began in the District Court, Idaho law has significantly changed — twice. And since we granted certiorari, the parties’ litigating positions have rendered the scope of the dispute unclear, at best.”
