The U.S. Supreme Court sends the Idaho abortion case back to lower courts. • New Hampshire Bulletin

As expected, after the court said it accidentally uploaded the opinion prematurely, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision Thursday temporarily sending a case over emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision was 6-3, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. It was published “per curiam,” meaning there is no primary author of the overall opinion.

The judges who upheld the decision wrote that they believed the court had heard the case too early in the process. It granted the request to hear the case in January before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hold its own hearing on an injunction blocking enforcement of the law against emergency room doctors who might have to perform an abortion to prevent a pregnant patient from significant health effects from infection or other conditions. The administration argued that Idaho could not enforce the criminal abortion ban in emergency rooms because it would conflict with a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients treat those who come to the emergency room no matter what. of their ability to pay.

When the justices agreed to hear the case, the court also dropped the injunction, leaving Idaho doctors open to prosecution under the criminal abortion ban, which carries prison sentences, fines and the loss of a medical license. Idaho civil law also allows immediate and extended family members to sue the doctors for up to $20,000 over an abortion procedure.

Idaho’s ban only includes an exception to save the life of the pregnant patient, not to prevent adverse health consequences, including loss of future fertility, which is a risk with severe infections or bleeding. Without further clarity in the law, doctors have said they cannot judge with certainty when to safely intervene to save someone’s life. Rather than take the risk, high-risk obstetric specialists have taken patients to an out-of-state facility where they can freely perform the procedure before it’s too late. In 2023, the state’s largest hospital system said such transfers at its facilities occurred once, but six times between January and April, when the order was lifted.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is typically conservative in her rulings, said the court’s decisions to hear the case and vacate the order were based on the belief that Idaho would suffer “irreparable harm” from the order and that the cases were ready for the court’s ruling. immediate determination. She wrote that the April briefings and oral arguments shed more light on the case, and made clear that conscientious objection was covered by EMTALA and that other concerns about an interpretation that would include emergency mental health care did not apply.

“I am now convinced that these matters are no longer suitable for expeditious resolution,” Barrett wrote.

Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, chair of a group of Idaho physicians who have spoken out against the ban and submitted a brief in the case to the court, said the decision is not the end of her coalition’s work.

“We are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Gustafson said. “However, this ruling only addresses a small portion of the growing barriers in the healthcare landscape. The coalition remains committed to advocating comprehensive policy updates to fill the gaps in health care access left by Idaho’s restrictive laws, which endanger patient safety. We will not relent until private healthcare decisions are once again at the discretion of patients and their doctors, free from political interference.”

Ahead of the decision, more than 6,000 doctors from across the country also appealed to the court to protect ER doctors, along with Idaho medical professionals and advocacy groups.

The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit to resume trial, but may ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date.