U.S. Supreme Court accidentally posted opinion on Idaho abortion case. Here’s what it says

The U.S. Supreme Court may strike down Idaho’s abortion ban in medical emergencies, according to an opinion briefly posted on the court’s website Wednesday.

Bloomberg first reported on the erroneously published opinion, a copy of which was also obtained by McClatchy DC and shared with the Idaho Statesman. Bloomberg said the document appeared on the Supreme Court website briefly as two other opinions were published.

The opinion prioritized a federal law mandating emergency medical treatment over Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. It’s unclear whether the document reflects the final opinion on the case, which court spokesperson Patricia McCabe told the Statesman “will be issued in due course.” McCabe said the document was published inadvertently.

A copy of the opinion showed the decision was 6-3, with justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

The opinion would not resolve the case. Instead, it would reverse a Supreme Court order issued in January that allowed Idaho’s abortion ban to take effect in medical emergencies. The case would return to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for more litigation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion criticizing the decision to dismiss the case to a lower court rather than resolving it. The case has already bounced from District Court to appeals courts, with several reversals of pauses on the emergency abortion ban.

“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,” Jackson wrote. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”

DOJ sues Idaho after Roe v. Wade reversal

It’s been two years since the highest court returned abortion lawmaking to the states, when the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and stripped away federal protections for the procedure. Since then, Idaho has created a few narrow exceptions to its abortion restrictions, including one to prevent the death — but not preserve the health — of a pregnant patient.

In 2022, following the SCOTUS decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state and said its strict ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. EMTALA is a 1980s law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in medical emergencies.

Doctors in Idaho and with prominent medical groups, including the American Medical Association, told the Statesman and Supreme Court that abortion is the recommended stabilizing treatment for several conditions that pose a potential health threat but don’t immediately threaten a patient’s life. Physicians face prison time and loss of their medical license if they’re found guilty of performing an illegal abortion.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has said Idaho’s abortion ban allows doctors to address medical conditions that don’t threaten imminent death. At a news conference following oral arguments at the court in April, Labrador implied that Idaho doctors were lying about an increase in out-of-state transfers for pregnant patients after the Supreme Court allowed the Idaho abortion ban to take full effect.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who co-authored one of the opinions in the briefly published document, acknowledged the increase in transfers and said the “on-the-ground impact” of the court’s January order was immediate.

In another opinion, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brent Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts said the case had become murky and would be better handled by the District Court. The opinion, which Barrett authored, took aim at the state and federal governments’ arguments, which shifted over the duration of the case.

Barrett wrote that they “rendered the scope of the dispute unclear, at best.”

During April’s oral arguments, Barrett appeared frustrated with Joshua Turner, Idaho’s chief of constitutional litigation and policy, who told the court there was no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho law.

“If there’s no instance where EMTALA and Idaho law clash, then why are you here?” Barrett asked.

Barrett’s opinion said it would be “imprudent” to answer the questions of whether federal law can allow hospitals to perform treatments banned by state law, and whether EMTALA can preempt state law, because it applies private hospitals. She noted that the debate over private entities emerged for the first time in April, as justices questioned the federal government during oral arguments.

Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts said changes to Idaho abortion law since 2022 also complicates the case. The law at the heart of the Supreme Court discussion was altered by the Idaho Legislature to allow abortions in cases of ectopic or molar pregnancies and to recategorize the “life of the mother” affirmative defense to an exception.

Alito, the most conservative justice on the court, penned the dissent. He said the court took up the case and issued its January order based on “Idaho’s ‘strong’ likelihood of success.” He slammed the decision to hand the case back to the District Court and walk back the order.

“This about-face is baffling,” Alito wrote. “Apparently the court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable.”

Idaho groups react to leak

The president of the conservative lobbying group that helped write some of Idaho’s strict abortion laws said in a news release Wednesday afternoon that his organization is “disappointed in” and strongly disagrees with the court, assuming the leaked document reflects the final ruling.

Blaine Conzatti, head of the Idaho Family Policy Center, said the organization warned lawmakers years ago that its exception to prevent the death of the mother “could be construed as conflicting with EMTALA and would almost certainly be challenged in federal court.”

Conzatti said his organization tried to work around that wording in its “heartbeat law,” which makes it illegal to perform an abortion when a fetal heartbeat — what many physicians say is actually electrical activity — is detected. The Idaho Family Policy Center anticipates more pushback from President Joe Biden and the administration’s allies over abortion access, Conzatti added.

Rebecca Gibron, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky expressed skepticism over the leak in a statement. She said a ruling in favor of abortion access misses the point.

“However the justices decide, we shouldn’t be here in the first place,” Gibron said. “Two years ago, this same court created a reproductive health care crisis across the country.”

McClatchy Chief Washington Correspondent Michael Wilner contributed to this report.