The Supreme Court has temporarily revived Idaho's near-total ban on abortions, which had been partially blocked by a federal trial judge. The court has also agreed to hear an appeal in the case, with arguments scheduled for April. The law, enacted in 2020, included a trigger provision that would come into effect 30 days after any U.S. Supreme Court decision that restored the authority of states to prohibit abortion. The recent decision in the Dobbs case fulfilled this condition, and the law was set to take effect in August 2022.

However, the Justice Department challenged the law under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), arguing that it conflicted with and displaced Idaho's abortion ban. The federal law requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding and have emergency rooms to provide necessary treatment to stabilize patients. The lawsuit claimed that the state ban prohibited doctors from performing abortions when needed to stabilize patients, even in dire situations that could potentially threaten the pregnant woman's life or health.

In August 2022, Judge Lynn Winmill of the Federal District Court in Boise issued a preliminary injunction partly blocking the state law, stating that it placed doctors in an impossible position. He explained that if physicians provided abortions, they could face severe legal consequences, including indictment, arrest, loss of medical license, and imprisonment. On the other hand, if they did not perform abortions, pregnant patients could face grave risks to their health, including severe sepsis, uncontrollable uterine hemorrhage, kidney failure, brain injury, or even death.

Judge Winmill emphasized that his ruling was not about the constitutional right to an abortion but rather about whether Idaho's criminal abortion statute conflicted with federal legislation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially put Judge Winmill's ruling on hold, reinstating the state's abortion ban. However, in a subsequent decision, an 11-member panel of the appeals court reversed course and blocked the law while an appeal is pending. Arguments for the appeal are scheduled for late January.

Idaho and state lawmakers sought the intervention of the Supreme Court, arguing that the federal emergency treatment law only required hospitals to treat indigent patients the same as anyone else and did not mandate abortions. They contended that a law endorsing delivery as stabilizing treatment and mentioning unborn children multiple times was not a promising candidate for a national abortion mandate.

The Supreme Court's decision allows Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while the legal battle continues. The court will hear arguments in April and has put on hold the lower court ruling that had blocked the Idaho law in hospital emergencies. The Biden administration had sued Idaho, arguing that hospitals receiving Medicare funds were required to provide emergency care, including abortion, regardless of state abortion restrictions.

The administration referenced the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which it claimed required healthcare providers to perform abortions for emergency room patients when necessary to treat a medical emergency. The state, however, argued that the administration was misusing EMTALA and imposing a federal abortion mandate on states. The federal appeals court in New Orleans recently came to a similar conclusion, ruling that the administration cannot use EMTALA to require hospitals in Texas to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy.

After Judge Winmill's ruling, Idaho lawmakers obtained an order allowing the law to be fully enforced from a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, a larger group of judges from the same court overturned the panel's ruling and scheduled arguments for late January.

The Supreme Court's decision to temporarily revive Idaho's near-total abortion ban has ignited further debate over the future of abortion rights in the United States. With arguments set for April, the nation awaits the court's final ruling on this contentious issue.