Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

even if there were some ambiguity in the statutory text, we
would be obligated to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the
State  because  EMTALA  was  enacted  under  the  Spending 
Clause, and as we have held time and again, conditions at-
tached to the receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous. 
Arlington  Central  School  Dist.  Bd.  of  Ed.  v.  Murphy,  548 
U. S. 291, 296 (2006); Pennhurst State School and Hospital 
v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981).  Here, no one who has 
any  respect  for  statutory  language  can  plausibly  say  that 
the Government’s interpretation is unambiguously correct.
And in any event, Idaho never consented to any conditions 
imposed by EMTALA and certainly did not surrender con-
trol of the practice of medicine and the regulation of abor-
tions within its territory. 

Recognizing  the  flaws  in  the  Government’s  theory  and 
Idaho’s “strong” likelihood of success, this Court stayed the 
preliminary injunction pending appeal on January 5.  And, 
wisely or not, the Court also took the unusual step of grant-
ing certiorari before Idaho’s appeal was heard by the Ninth
Circuit.  See this Court’s Rule 11.  Now the Court dismisses 
the writ and, what is worse, vacates the stay. 

This about-face is baffling.  Nothing legally relevant has
occurred since January 5.  And the underlying issue in this 
case—whether  EMTALA  requires  hospitals  to  perform 
abortions  in  some  circumstances—is  a  straightforward 
question  of  statutory  interpretation.    It  is  squarely  pre-
sented by the decision below, and it has been exhaustively
briefed  and  argued.  In  addition  to  the  parties’  briefs,  we 
received 46 amicus briefs, including briefs submitted by 44
States and the District of Columbia; briefs expressing the 
views of 379 Members of Congress; and briefs from promi-
nent medical organizations.  Altogether, we have more than
1,300 pages of briefing to assist us, and we heard nearly two
hours  of  argument.    Everything  there  is  to  say  about  the
statutory  interpretation  question  has  probably  been  said 
many times over.  That question is as ripe for decision as it