The ACLJ Files Amicus Brief Urging 9th Circuit Court of Appeals To Reverse Injunction Against Idaho’s Pro-Life Law

Recently, in United States v. Idaho and Mike Moyle, the ACLJ filed its fourth amicus brief in support of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. As we explained here, Idaho’s pro-life law provides that “[e]very person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion . . . commits the crime of criminal abortion.” The law does not penalize the mother but rather imposes penalties of two to five years imprisonment and license suspension for medical professionals who perform or assist in performing the abortion. The law includes exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger.

By way of background, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade, many states quickly passed pro-life laws. Determined to thwart such laws and coerce its pro-abortion policy, the Biden-Harris Administration swung into action, including filing a lawsuit against Idaho. The Department of Justice claimed that Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funding to administer emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. The law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA’s sole purpose is to ensure that everyone who goes to an emergency room gets the health care they need regardless of whether they have health insurance. The law says nothing about abortion, but it does require hospitals to give pregnant mothers care that “stabiliz[es]” an unborn child.

The case has run a circuitous route, and as we told you here, it is now back before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the Supreme Court of the United States granted and then denied review. During oral argument before the Supreme Court, the lawyer for the Biden Administration backpedaled significantly from some of the Administration’s earlier positions in the lower courts. As a result of those concessions, several Justices concluded that Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remained largely intact and that review by the high Court was no longer appropriate.

Just two business days after the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit, the Biden-Harris Administration reinstated its previous arguments that EMTALA precludes enforcement of Idaho’s law. The Administration’s abrupt reversal essentially reneged on the representations its lawyer made to the Justices in oral argument.

The case is now back before the full (en banc) Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and counsel for the State of Idaho requested our amicus support again. Oral argument in the case is scheduled for early December 2024.

In the ACLJ’s brief, we renewed our argument that the district court lacked the power to enjoin Idaho’s Defense of Life Act: “The [Biden Administration] sought, and the district court exercised, an unbridled equitable power that strikes at the heart of federalism and separation of powers.” We explained that the district court’s injunction “trespassed on the state’s legislative power to regulate the practice of medicine, a traditional police power reserved to Idaho under the Constitution, and expressly not preempted by EMTALA.” Our brief concluded that the Biden Administration’s attempt to coerce the states into adopting pro-abortion policy must fail.

Displeased with Dobbs’s return of the abortion issue to the states, the Executive Branch resorted to the equitable powers of the federal judiciary. . . . The Executive Branch haled Idaho into federal court on the grounds that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) preempted Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. The district court acquiesced without ever considering whether doing so was within its equitable powers. It was not. The historic limitations on the federal judiciary’s equitable power exist precisely to prevent such brazen attempts at “government by lawsuit.” Robert H. Jackson, The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy 286-87 (1st ed. 1941).

With your ongoing support, we have stood with the state of Idaho every step of the way and will continue to defend state laws defending the life of the unborn.