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

8 

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

must pregnant patients wait for an answer?  Until we con-
front the pending petition that the Government filed with
us  after  the  Fifth  Circuit  enabled  Texas’s  flouting  of 
EMTALA?    Until  these  very  cases  return  to  us  in  a  few 
years?  Will this Court just have a do-over, rehearing and 
rehashing  the  same  arguments  we  are  considering  now,
just at a comparatively more convenient point in time?  Or 
maybe we will keep punting on this issue altogether, allow-
ing chaos to reign wherever lower courts enable States to
flagrantly undercut federal law, facilitating the suffering of
people in need of urgent medical treatment. 

After  today,  there  will  be  a  few  months—maybe  a  few 
years—during which doctors may no longer need to airlift 
pregnant patients out of Idaho.  As JUSTICE KAGAN empha-
sizes, portions of Idaho’s law will be preliminarily enjoined 
(at least for now).  Ante, at 2, 4.  But having not heard from 
this Court on the ultimate pre-emption issue, Idaho’s doc-
tors will still have to decide whether to provide emergency 
medical  care  in  the  midst  of  highly  charged  legal  circum-
stances with no guarantee that this fragile detente over the 
State’s  categorical  prohibitions  will  be  maintained.    Cf. 
ante, at 8 (BARRETT, J., concurring) (“Even with the prelim-
inary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law 
remains almost entirely intact”).

So, to be clear: Today’s decision is not a victory for preg-
nant patients in Idaho.  It is delay.  While this Court daw-
dles  and  the  country  waits,  pregnant  people  experiencing 
emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious posi-
tion, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the
law requires.  This Court had a chance to bring clarity and 
certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered 
it.  And  for  as  long  as  we  refuse  to  declare  what  the  law 
requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere 
will be paying the price.  Because we owe  them—and the 
Nation—an  answer  to  the  straightforward  pre-emption
question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent.