Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

1 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 23–726 and 23–727 
_________________ 

MIKE MOYLE, SPEAKER OF THE IDAHO HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
UNITED STATES 

23–726 

23–727 

IDAHO, PETITIONER 
v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 27, 2024] 

JUSTICE JACKSON,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in 

part. 

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treat-
ment  and  Labor  Act  (EMTALA),  which  requires  hospitals 
to provide stabilizing treatment when patients present with 
emergency  medical  conditions.    See  42  U. S. C.  §1395dd. 
Sometimes,  an  abortion  is  the  only  way  to  stabilize  a  pa-
tient and, therefore, comply with EMTALA.  But Idaho law 
prohibits  abortions  unless  the  treating  physician  believes 
that  the  abortion  is  “necessary  to  prevent  the  [patient’s] 
death.” Idaho Code Ann. §18–622(2)(a)(i) (Supp. 2023). 

Recognizing  the  clear  conflict  between  EMTALA  and 
Idaho  law,  a  Federal  District  Judge  issued  an  injunction 
that had the effect of ensuring that Idaho physicians would 
be  able  to  provide  the  abortion  care  EMTALA  requires. 
Five months ago, this Court stayed that injunction.  As a 
legal matter, this Court’s stay meant that unless a doctor