Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 21

6 

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

would shirk its duty to resolve a pressing legal issue on the 
basis of representations that defy medical realities. 

In  any  event,  the  representations  Idaho’s  counsel  made
during oral argument and in the State’s briefs filed in this 
Court are not a definitive interpretation of Idaho law.  That 
authority  remains  with  the  Idaho  Supreme  Court,  which 
has never endorsed the State’s  position.  To the contrary,
the  Idaho  Supreme  Court  has  emphasized  that,  to  avoid 
criminal liability, a doctor must subjectively believe that an
Planned 
is  necessary  to  prevent  death. 
abortion 
Parenthood Great Northwest v. State, 171 Idaho 374, 445– 
446, 522 P. 3d 1132, 1203–1204 (2023).  And that is to say 
nothing of local prosecutors, who may not be aware of (or
care about) Idaho’s newfound interpretation of its abortion
ban, and who are highly incentivized to enforce the law to
the hilt.  See Idaho Code Ann. §63–3642 (Supp. 2023) (with-
holding funding from local governments if their officials de-
cline to enforce Idaho felony laws, which include these fel-
ony  abortion  laws);  see  also  Brief  for  Idaho  Coalition  for 
Safe Healthcare, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 14–24 (discussing 
myriad ways in which state and local officials in Idaho have 
targeted physicians).  Still, some of my colleagues latch onto 
the bald representations of Idaho’s counsel, using them as
an escape hatch that justifies our dispensing with having to 
issue a merits ruling in these cases. 

We cannot simply wind back the clock to how things were
before the Court injected itself into this matter.  Our inter-
vention  has  already  distorted  this  litigation  process.    We 
permitted Idaho’s law to go into effect by staying the Dis-
trict Court’s injunction in the first place, then allowed this 
matter to sit on our merits docket for five months while we 
considered the question presented.  It is too little, too late 
for  the  Court  to  take  a  mulligan  and  just  tell  the  lower 

—————— 
for Amanda Zurawski et al. as Amici Curiae 29–30 (same); Brief for Phy-
sicians for Human Rights as Amicus Curiae 12–17 (same).