Moyle v. United States
Issues
Does the federal government have authority under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients, to preempt Idaho’s Defense of Life Act by requiring Idaho to perform abortions under certain circumstances?
This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”), which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients, can preempt state abortion regulations. Idaho’s Defense of Life Act prohibits hospitals from performing abortion unless it is necessary to protect the pregnant mother from death. EMTALA states that it preempts any state law which directly conflicts with its requirements, which includes providing stabilizing care to patients. Idaho and its House speaker Mike Moyle argue that EMTALA cannot preempt Idaho state law because preemption would violate state sovereignty where there is no conflict between the two laws. The United States counters that EMTALA imposes a broader standard than Idaho law, and the executive and legislature can preempt state law under EMTALA via the Supremacy Clause. The outcome of this case has important implications for abortion rights, separation of powers, and sovereignty of states.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.
Idaho’s 2022 Defense of Life Act, enacted in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, criminalizes the performance of abortions.
Additional Resources
- Amy Howe, Justices Take Up Abortion Case Pitting State Against Federal Law, SCOTUSblog (Jan 2024).
- Greg Stohr, Emergency Abortion Dispute Gets Review by US Supreme Court, Bloomberg Law (Jan 2024).