Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

7 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

For  these  reasons,  a  “deviation  from  normal  appellate
practice” in these cases has proved to be unwise.  Supreme
Court Rule 11.  I therefore agree that we should dismiss the
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and permit pro-
ceedings to run their course in the courts below.

Having  dismissed  the  writ,  I  also  agree  that  we  should 
vacate the stay.  As the party seeking emergency relief from
this Court, Idaho bore the burden of showing that it would 
be “ ‘irreparably injured’ ” if the preliminary injunction re-
mained in effect.  Nken, 556 U. S., at 434.  The Court’s grant 
of  a  stay  reflected,  among  other  things,  its  determination
that  Idaho  had  satisfied  that  burden.    Now,  based  on  the 
parties’ representations, it appears that the injunction will 
not stop Idaho from enforcing its law in the vast majority of
circumstances.   

to 

To  be sure,  the  text  of  the  two  laws  differs: Idaho’s  Act 
allows abortion only when “necessary to prevent the death 
of the pregnant woman,” Idaho Code Ann. §18–622(2)(a)(i),
while EMTALA requires stabilizing care to prevent “serious 
jeopardy” 
42  U. S. C. 
the  woman’s  health, 
§1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i).  But Idaho represents that its exception
is  broader  than  the  United  States  fears,  and  the  United 
States represents that EMTALA’s requirement is narrower
than Idaho fears.  That matters in assessing Idaho’s irrep-
arable harm for purposes of the stay.  The dramatic narrow-
ing of the dispute—especially the Government’s position on
abortions to address mental health and conscience exemp-
tions for healthcare providers—has undercut the conclusion
that Idaho would suffer irreparable harm under the prelim-
inary injunction.  Contrary to Idaho’s concerns at the stay 
stage,  the  Government’s  interpretation  of  EMTALA  does 
not  purport  to  transform  emergency  rooms  into  “federal 
abortion enclaves governed not by state law, but by physi-
cian judgment, as enforced by the United States’s mandate
to perform abortions on demand.”  Stay Reply Brief in No. 
23A470, p. 6 (citation omitted).  Nor does it purport to de-
prive  doctors  and  hospitals  of  conscience  protections.  Cf.