Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 13

6 

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

Tr. of Oral Arg. 23.  The same is true for the conditions iden-
tified by the Government’s witnesses (severe heart failure 
and sepsis).  Reply Brief in No. 23–727, pp. 8–9. 

A grant of certiorari before judgment presumes that fur-
ther proceedings below are unnecessary to the Court’s res-
olution of the question presented.  That was a miscalcula-
tion in these cases, because the parties’ positions are still
evolving.  The United States has clarified that EMTALA’s 
reach is far more modest than it appeared when we granted 
certiorari  and  a  stay.  Idaho  law  has  materially  changed
since the District Court entered the preliminary injunction, 
and,  based  on  the  parties’  arguments  before  us,  it  seems 
that the framing of these cases has not had sufficient op-
portunity  to  catch  up.  Cf.  The  Monrosa  v.  Carbon  Black 
Export, Inc., 359 U. S. 180, 184 (1959) (“Examination of a 
case on the merits, on oral argument, may bring into ‘proper
focus’ a consideration which, though present in the record
at  the  time  of  granting  the  writ,  only  later  indicates  that 
the grant was improvident”). 

On top of that, petitioners have raised a difficult and con-
sequential  argument,  which  they  did  not  discuss  in  their 
stay  applications,  about  whether  Congress,  in  reliance  on 
the  Spending  Clause,  can  obligate  recipients  of  federal 
funds to violate state criminal law.  Brief for Petitioners in 
No. 23–726, pp. 48–51; Reply Brief in No. 23–727, pp. 3–4;
see  also  Brief  for  Prolife  Center  at  the  University  of 
St. Thomas as Amicus Curiae.  The District Court did not 
address this issue below—nor did the Ninth Circuit, which 
we  bypassed.  We  should  not  jump  ahead  of  the  lower 
courts, particularly on an issue of such importance.  Cutter 
v.  Wilkinson,  544  U. S.  709,  718,  n. 7  (2005)  (“[W]e  are  a 
court  of  review,  not  of  first  view”);  New  York  v.  Uplinger, 
467 U. S. 246, 251 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (dismiss-
ing  as  improvidently  granted  where  “constitutional  ques-
tions” would otherwise be considered “premature[ly]”).  The 
lower courts should address the Spending Clause issue in
the first instance.