Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 2

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

1 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

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 K AGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE S OTOMAYOR joins, 
and with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins as to Part II, con-
curring. 

An Idaho law prohibits abortions unless necessary to pre-
vent a pregnant woman’s death; the law makes no excep-
tion for abortions necessary to prevent grave harms to the 
woman’s health, like the loss of her fertility.  Before the law 
could  take  effect,  the Federal  Government  sued  the  State 
under  the  Emergency  Medical  Treatment  and  Labor  Act 
(EMTALA).  That law requires a Medicare-funded hospital 
to  provide  essential  care  to  patients  experiencing  medical 
emergencies. The  Governme nt’s  suit  contended  that 
EMTALA  preempts  the  Idaho  abortion  law  in  a  narrow 
class of cases: when the state law bars a hospital from per-
forming  an  abortion  needed  to  prevent  serious  health 
harms. 

The District Court, believing the Government was likely