The Supreme Court hearing on the Biden administration’s challenge to aspects of Idaho’s strict abortion ban saw US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar present arguments aimed at appealing to conservative justices who previously ruled that states have the right to prohibit the procedure. This dispute arose from the Justice Department’s response to the high court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, focusing on whether federal mandates for hospital emergency room care take precedence over abortion bans that do not make exceptions for situations where a woman’s health is in danger but her life is not at risk.
Prelogar emphasized that there is a genuine conflict between Idaho’s law and the federal statute known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), but she characterized it as a narrow one. She clarified that the administration is not seeking to interfere with Idaho’s ability to criminalize abortions unless it is a medical emergency covered by EMTALA.
For the Biden administration to succeed, they will need the support of two conservative justices on the Supreme Court. With Justice Brett Kavanaugh leaning towards Idaho’s side, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett are likely to be the deciding votes in this case. Both justices posed challenging questions for both sides during the hearing, with the conservative wing of the court framing the case as federal overreach into state power.
Meanwhile, the liberal justices focused on the harrowing details of medical emergencies faced by pregnant women that were not covered by Idaho’s limited exemption for situations where a woman’s life is in danger. Ultimately, their votes will be pivotal in determining whether federal mandates for hospital emergency room care should take precedence over state laws that criminalize abortion outside of these narrow exceptions.
