Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

courts to carry on as if none of this has happened.  As the 
old adage goes: The Court has made this bed so now it must 
lie in it—by proceeding to decide the merits of the critical 
pre-emption issue this case presents. 

We  have  granted  certiorari  and  heard  argument.    We 
have  had  ample  opportunity  to  consider  the  issues.    The 
parties were well represented on both sides, and dozens of 
amici have weighed in.  What is more, the necessary legal 
reasoning is straightforward, and the answer to the ques-
tion presented is—or at least should be—quite clear: Idaho
law prohibits what federal law requires, so to that extent, 
under  the  Supremacy  Clause,  Idaho’s  law  is  pre-empted.
See Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U. S. 472, 
479–480 (2013) (“[I]t has long been settled that state laws 
that conflict with federal laws are ‘without effect’ ” (quoting 
Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981))).  There 
is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now. 

* 

* 

* 

Despite the clarity of the legal issue and the dire need for 
an answer from this Court, today six Justices refuse to rec-
ognize the rights that EMTALA protects.  See ante, at 4–7 
(BARRETT, J., concurring); post, at 4–11 (ALITO, J., dissent-
ing).  The majority opts, instead, to dismiss these cases.  But 
storm clouds loom ahead.  Three Justices suggest, at least
in this context, that States have free rein to nullify federal
law.  See post, at 11–14 (ALITO, J., dissenting).  And three 
more decline to disagree with those dissenters on the mer-
its.  See ante, at 4–7 (BARRETT, J., concurring).  The latter 
group offers only murmurs that “petitioners have raised a 
difficult and consequential argument” about Congress’s au-
thority under the Spending Clause.  Ante, at 6 (BARRETT, J., 
concurring).    So,  as  of  today,  the  Court  has  not  adopted
Idaho’s farfetched theories—but it has not rejected them ei-
ther. 

Instead,  the  Court  puts  off  the  decision.  But  how  long