The US Supreme Court has granted permission for Idaho to implement its restrictive abortion law, which applies even in cases of medical emergencies, while the legal battle surrounding the issue continues.

The judges declared that they will listen to discussions in April and temporarily suspended a previous court decision that had prohibited the implementation of an Idaho law during medical emergencies. This was in response to a lawsuit brought forth by the Biden administration.

The Idaho case gives the court its second major abortion dispute since the justices in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to severely restrict or ban abortion. The court also in the coming months is hearing a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for obtaining mifepristone, one of two medications used in the most common method of abortion in the United States.

The Biden administration has stated that hospitals receiving Medicare funds must abide by federal law and provide emergency care, including abortion, even in states with laws prohibiting abortion.

The government provided instructions regarding the federal statute known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (or EMTALA) two weeks after the Supreme Court decision in 2022. The Democratic administration filed a lawsuit against Idaho one month later.

B. Lynn Winmill, a U.S. District Judge in Idaho, concurred with the administration’s viewpoint. However, in a distinct case in Texas, a judge ruled in favor of the state.

On Friday evening, President Joe Biden expressed his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s ruling and pledged to uphold a woman’s right to receive emergency medical services under federal law.

In Idaho, it is considered a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison for anyone who participates in or aids in an abortion.

The governing body maintains that under EMTALA, healthcare professionals are obligated to perform abortions for emergency room patients in order to treat a medical crisis, regardless of any conflicting state laws regarding abortion.

Some of those factors may include excessive bleeding, preeclampsia, and specific infections related to pregnancy.

According to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, in some cases abortion is necessary as a stabilizing treatment for medical emergencies. This was stated in a filing by the administration at the Supreme Court.

The state contended that the government was misappropriating a law meant to prohibit hospitals from transferring patients and enforcing a “federal abortion mandate” on states. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador stated in a legal document to the court that “EMTALA does not mention abortion.”

On Tuesday, the federal appeals court in New Orleans reached a similar decision to Labrador’s. A panel of three judges declared that the government cannot utilize EMTALA to mandate Texas hospitals to perform abortions for pregnant women whose lives are in danger. Two of the judges were chosen by President Donald Trump, while the third was appointed by former Republican president George W. Bush.

The decision of U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who was appointed by Trump, was upheld by the appeals court. Hendrix stated that following the perspective of the Biden administration would require doctors to prioritize the health of the pregnant individual over the health of the fetus or embryo, despite the fact that EMTALA does not mention abortion.

Following a decision by Winmill, who was chosen by Democratic President Bill Clinton, Idaho legislators were granted permission to enforce the law in its entirety. This was granted by a panel of judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, all of whom were appointed by Republican President Trump. However, a larger group of 9th Circuit judges overturned the panel’s ruling and scheduled arguments for late January in the case.

On Friday, the justices’ ruling transfers the case from the appeals court. We can anticipate a decision to be made in the early summer.

The recent progress on Friday is only one of many ongoing legal disputes in Idaho’s court system.

Four women and multiple doctors have brought a legal case to an Idaho court, seeking clarification on the criteria for patients to obtain a lawful abortion. Despite efforts from the Attorney General’s office to have the case dismissed, the court has approved it to proceed.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in November temporarily blocked Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law from being enforced while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is underway. That law, which Idaho lawmakers passed last year, was designed to prevent minors from getting abortions in states where the procedure is legal if they don’t have their parents’ permission.

___

Kimberlee Kruesi, a writer for the Associated Press, provided contributions to this report from Nashville, Tennessee.