Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 3

2

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

to prevail in its suit, entered a preliminary injunction.  Dur-
ing  the  year  that  the  injunction  was  in  place,  women  in 
Idaho were able to obtain abortions in medical emergencies. 
Idaho meanwhile sought to get the injunction lifted.  When 
the en banc Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined 
to stay the injunction, Idaho filed an emergency application 
here.  This  Court  stayed  the  injunction  and  granted  the
State’s  petition  for  certiorari  before  judgment.    With  that 
stay  in  effect,  Idaho  could  enforce  its  abortion  ban  even 
when  terminating  a  pregnancy  was  necessary  to  prevent 
grave harm to the woman.  The on-the-ground impact was 
immediate.  To ensure appropriate medical care, the State’s
largest provider of emergency services had to airlift preg-
nant  women  out  of  Idaho  roughly  every  other  week,  com-
pared to once in all of the prior year (when the injunction 
was in effect).  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 66, 113. 

I concur in the Court’s decision today to vacate its stay
and  dismiss  the  writ  of  certiorari  before  judgment  as  im-
providently  granted.  I  do  so  because  Idaho’s  arguments
about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, ei-
ther emergency relief or our early consideration of this dis-
pute.  With  this  Court’s  writ  of  certiorari  dismissed,  the 
lower courts can proceed with this litigation in the regular 
course.  And with this Court’s stay dissolved, the District
Court’s preliminary injunction will again take effect.  That 
will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the 
termination  of  a  pregnancy  is  needed  to  prevent  serious 
harms to a woman’s health. 

I 
EMTALA  requires  hospitals  to  provide  abortions  that
Idaho’s  law  prohibits.  When  that  is  so,  Idaho’s  law  is 
preempted.  The  Court’s  ruling  today  follows  from  those 
premises.

Federal law and Idaho law are in conflict about the treat-
ment  of  pregnant  women  facing  health  emergencies.