Probability U.S. Supreme Court will uphold emergency abortion care protections in Moyle v. United States | 25%How does this work

Background Information

Moyle v. United States
Moyle v. United States is a pending United States Supreme Court case about whether an Idaho abortion law conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Idaho passed a law criminalizing most abortions in 2020, with exceptions only for situations necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, rape or incest, or an ectopic or molar pregnancy. The federal government argued that EMTALA requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide abortions in cases of medical emergencies, leading to a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration in federal district court in Idaho. District judge B. Lynn Winmill granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the U.S. government, but the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the stay. The case was then challenged to the Supreme Court by the state and the Idaho legislature, led by Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives Mike Moyle. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban in January 2024 and agreed to review the case on an expedited basis, with oral arguments scheduled for April.

Influential Actors

Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brett M. Kavanaugh is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2018 amidst significant controversy and allegations of sexual assault.
Brett M. Kavanaugh's record and public statements suggest a conservative stance on abortion rights, with a history of rulings and opinions that favor state restrictions and question the strength of the Roe v. Wade precedent. His judicial philosophy of originalism and textualism, along with his past endorsements and associations, further align him with a conservative position on abortion rights.
Observation:
During his 2018 confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh referred to Roe v. Wade as an 'important precedent' but avoided directly stating his position on abortion rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2017 case (Garza v. Hargan), Kavanaugh dissented on the decision allowing an undocumented teen in detention to have an abortion, emphasizing government interests over the individual's right.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in 2020 (June Medical Services v. Russo) arguing that Louisiana's law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals did not pose an 'undue burden'.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 2021, Kavanaugh voted to allow a Texas law to go into effect that bans most abortions after six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has consistently emphasized the importance of states' rights and precedent, which suggests a potential openness to upholding state restrictions on abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2003 email, Kavanaugh questioned the accuracy of calling Roe v. Wade 'settled law of the land', indicating skepticism about its untouchability.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his time in the Bush administration, Kavanaugh was involved in the nomination of judges who were known to be conservative on social issues, including abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy is rooted in originalism and textualism, which often aligns with conservative rulings, including those limiting abortion rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2018 speech, Kavanaugh praised former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade, highlighting Rehnquist's view that the court should not have created a right to abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has been endorsed by and associated with conservative groups and individuals who are opposed to abortion rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Brett M. Kavanaugh's jurisprudential philosophy is characterized by a strong commitment to textualism and originalism, respect for precedent, and a conservative view on the role of the judiciary. He tends to favor a limited interpretation of federal power, is skeptical of broad agency authority, and supports executive power. His decisions often reflect a preference for clear, rule-based outcomes and a concern for the separation of powers.
Observation:
Kavanaugh has consistently shown respect for precedent, often citing the importance of stare decisis in his decisions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has a textualist approach, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the statutory language at the time of enactment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, arguing for a narrow interpretation of antitrust laws based on precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh emphasized his belief in an independent judiciary.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown skepticism towards the Chevron deference, which gives agencies authority to interpret ambiguous statutes.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, focusing on textualist arguments.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has a history of ruling in favor of executive power, as seen in his opinions during his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in Garza v. Hargan, arguing against an undocumented immigrant minor's right to an immediate abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed concern over the expansion of administrative agencies' power beyond what Congress has explicitly granted.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh joined the majority in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, which limited the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In criminal law, Kavanaugh has shown a tendency to support law enforcement and prosecution, though he has also advocated for the rights of defendants in certain contexts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has argued for religious liberty and supported the presence of religious expression in the public sphere.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in Net Neutrality case, United States Telecom Association v. FCC, favoring deregulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a commitment to originalism, interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was written.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has been critical of the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that expands federal power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his opinions, he has often shown a preference for clear rules that can be consistently applied.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh joined the majority in Ramos v. Louisiana, which required unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in state criminal trials.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed admiration for former Justice Anthony Kennedy, under whom he clerked and whose seat he filled, known for his swing vote in key decisions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has been involved in decisions that protect Second Amendment rights, aligning with a conservative interpretation of gun control laws.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and the need for courts to avoid encroaching on legislative and executive functions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
The evidence suggests that Justice Kavanaugh tends to interpret the Constitution with an originalist perspective, often showing skepticism towards expansive regulatory powers not clearly granted by Congress, particularly in the context of health and safety regulations. His dissents and opinions frequently emphasize a strict reading of statutory and constitutional text, suggesting a preference for clear legislative authorization over broad administrative interpretation. This is evident in his positions on cases involving the ACA, EPA, and abortion restrictions.
Observation:
In his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh stated his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, respecting its original meaning.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh dissented in a case involving the ACA, expressing skepticism about the broad reading of regulatory powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2011 dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the EPA overstepped its authority in regulating greenhouse gases without clear congressional authorization.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2018 case of Garza v. Hargan, Kavanaugh dissented on the decision to allow an undocumented teen in detention to obtain an abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the Supreme Court case of Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019), Kavanaugh joined the majority in reinstating an Indiana law requiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 case of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, Kavanaugh dissented, supporting a Louisiana law imposing restrictions on abortion providers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 Supreme Court ruling on the ACA's individual mandate, Kavanaugh concurred with the decision that the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote for the majority in the 2020 case of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, upholding the government's debt-collection exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 case of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Kavanaugh joined the majority in granting an injunction against New York's COVID-19 restrictions on religious services.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2017 dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure was unconstitutional, emphasizing checks and balances.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2019 case of Apple Inc. v. Pepper, Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion allowing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple to proceed.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Kavanaugh joined the majority in reinstating FDA rules requiring in-person visits for abortion medication during the COVID-19 pandemic.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of Tandon v. Newsom, Kavanaugh joined the majority in an unsigned opinion favoring religious gatherings in private homes despite California's COVID-19 restrictions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Kavanaugh joined the majority in ruling that a California regulation granting union organizers access to farm property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of West Virginia v. EPA, Kavanaugh signaled skepticism about the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without clear congressional authorization during oral arguments.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of NFIB v. OSHA, Kavanaugh joined the majority in staying the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2021 case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, Kavanaugh joined the majority in allowing a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks to remain in effect while litigation continued.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2022 case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Kavanaugh signaled during oral arguments a willingness to consider overturning Roe v. Wade, questioning its constitutional grounding.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2022 case of Biden v. Missouri, Kavanaugh joined the majority in upholding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2022 case of NFIB v. Department of Labor, Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion upholding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's authority to regulate workplace hazards.
gpt-4-1106-preview
John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States, appointed in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
John G. Roberts, Jr.'s views on abortion, as evidenced by his judicial record, show a respect for precedent but also a willingness to uphold abortion restrictions in certain contexts. He has indicated that Roe v. Wade is settled law, yet he has joined or authored opinions that chip away at abortion rights. His nuanced position suggests he may not be inclined to completely overturn established abortion rights but is open to upholding laws that impose restrictions on abortion, provided they do not directly contravene Supreme Court precedent.
Observation:
During his 2003 confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit, Roberts stated that he would be guided by legal precedent, including Roe v. Wade.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his 2005 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
As a deputy solicitor general, Roberts co-wrote a brief for the Supreme Court that stated Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, Roberts voted to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2020 case, June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts concurred with the liberal justices to strike down a Louisiana law that placed restrictions on abortion providers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his concurrence in June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent, specifically citing the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts dissented in the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion restrictions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 2021, Roberts was part of a 5-4 majority that declined to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks, but he wrote a dissenting opinion expressing legal concerns about the law's enforcement mechanism.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has not publicly stated a personal view on abortion outside of his judicial capacity.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2018 case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, Roberts joined the majority in a decision that favored crisis pregnancy centers, which are often run by anti-abortion groups.
gpt-4-1106-preview
John G. Roberts, Jr.'s ideological leanings are complex and cannot be easily categorized along a simple conservative-liberal spectrum. While he has often sided with the conservative bloc on issues such as voting rights, campaign finance, and religious liberty, he has also joined or authored decisions that align with more liberal positions, such as upholding the Affordable Care Act and legalizing same-sex marriage. His emphasis on judicial restraint, institutional integrity, and the importance of precedent suggests a more nuanced approach to jurisprudence that sometimes crosses ideological lines. Roberts appears to prioritize the Court's reputation and the rule of law over a consistent ideological stance.
Observation:
Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He dissented in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), limiting the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), expanding corporate political speech rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He voted to uphold the Trump administration's travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has generally favored restrictions on abortion, as seen in his votes on various cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often sided with the conservative bloc in cases involving religious liberty.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown support for the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has voted to limit the use of race in college admissions, consistent with conservative views on affirmative action.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has been skeptical of broad interpretations of executive power in some cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has emphasized judicial restraint and the importance of precedent in his opinions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has supported the death penalty in his votes on capital punishment cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often voted to enforce arbitration agreements, reflecting a pro-business stance.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a commitment to the institutional integrity of the Court, often seeking to avoid highly partisan rulings.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has occasionally sided with liberal justices on issues of criminal procedure and defendants' rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has advocated for a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez (2005).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been involved in decisions that have chipped away at campaign finance regulations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has demonstrated a pattern of deference to legislative judgments in cases involving economic regulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed concern over the politicization of the judiciary and has defended the independence of the courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.'s jurisprudential philosophy is characterized by a commitment to judicial restraint, a respect for precedent (stare decisis), and a focus on the text of the law. He often takes a pragmatic approach that can lead to siding with either conservative or liberal justices, depending on the case. His rulings reflect a balance between conservative principles, such as a narrow interpretation of federal power, and a willingness to uphold certain expansive readings of laws when they align with his interpretation of the Constitution's text and principles. Roberts appears to prioritize the institutional integrity of the court and often seeks to avoid perceptions of the judiciary as politically driven.
Observation:
In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts emphasized the role of judges as umpires who apply the rules rather than make them.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012, focusing on the statute's constitutionality under Congress's taxing power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), arguing that the Constitution does not address same-sex marriage.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In King v. Burwell (2015), Roberts supported a broad interpretation of the Affordable Care Act to uphold subsidies.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a tendency to favor incremental legal changes over sweeping shifts, as seen in various rulings.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which expanded political speech rights for corporations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often emphasized judicial restraint and the limited role of the courts in his opinions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Riley v. California (2014), protecting privacy rights in the digital age.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has demonstrated a commitment to the principle of stare decisis, often upholding precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has occasionally sided with liberal justices on key cases, reflecting a pragmatic approach to jurisprudence.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his dissent in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), Roberts expressed skepticism about the broad interpretation of regulatory powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a concern for the institutional integrity and public perception of the Supreme Court.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has been critical of the perceived politicization of the judiciary and has defended the independence of the courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In criminal law, Roberts has generally taken a conservative stance but has also supported the rights of the accused in certain contexts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has advocated for a narrow reading of federal power in cases involving the Commerce Clause.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has expressed support for religious freedom, as seen in his opinions in cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been cautious about expanding federal regulatory powers without clear congressional authorization.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a commitment to textualism, focusing on the text of statutes and the Constitution in his interpretations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his opinion for the court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Roberts upheld the president's travel ban, emphasizing the executive's broad authority in matters of national security.
gpt-4-1106-preview
The evidence suggests that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. is aware of public opinion but does not consistently allow it to dictate his judicial decisions. He has demonstrated a commitment to legal precedent and the independence of the judiciary, even when it leads to decisions that go against prevailing public sentiment. However, there are instances where his rulings have aligned with public opinion, indicating a nuanced approach that considers a variety of factors, including the potential impact on the Court's legitimacy and public perception. His occasional siding with liberal or conservative blocs and his concern for the Court's reputation suggest that while public opinion is not the primary driver of his decisions, it is a factor in the complex matrix that influences his judicial philosophy.
Observation:
Roberts' confirmation hearings emphasized respect for legal precedent over personal views.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, a decision that aligned with public opinion at the time.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has stressed the importance of an apolitical judiciary, suggesting a resistance to public opinion sway.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his tenure, Roberts has voted both with conservative and liberal blocs, showing a complex approach to decision-making.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He authored the majority opinion in Riley v. California (2014), protecting privacy rights in the digital age, which was a popular public stance.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has avoided public commentary on political matters, maintaining a focus on legal reasoning.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Roberts dissented on same-sex marriage legalization, despite growing public support for it.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed concern about the Supreme Court's public perception, indicating some awareness of public opinion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, a decision that was controversial and against a significant public opinion trend.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has occasionally given speeches emphasizing the judiciary's role as separate from politics and public sentiment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), Roberts sided with the liberal justices to block the citizenship question on the census, a decision that was sensitive to public reaction and controversy.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a tendency to avoid radical shifts in law, which could be seen as a nod to stability and public expectations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been critical of the judicial confirmation process, suggesting it is too influenced by politics and, by extension, public opinion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote a rare public statement rebuking President Trump's criticism of an 'Obama judge', defending the judiciary's independence.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 election-related cases, Roberts took positions that avoided inflaming an already volatile public sentiment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been part of decisions that both expand and restrict voting rights, showing a nuanced approach rather than a clear public opinion alignment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has emphasized the importance of legal doctrine and the Constitution over public opinion in his rulings.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown deference to executive and legislative branches at times, which could be interpreted as a recognition of their closer ties to public opinion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has been involved in decisions that have both upheld and limited environmental regulations, reflecting a balance between legal interpretation and public environmental concerns.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In cases involving religious freedom, Roberts has sometimes sided with the majority opinion that aligns with a more conservative public sentiment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
John G. Roberts, Jr.'s decisions reflect a nuanced approach to states' rights versus federal authority. He has upheld federal power in cases involving the Commerce Clause, taxation, and healthcare, but has also supported states' rights in matters of same-sex marriage, election laws, and education. His rulings do not consistently favor one side, indicating a balanced assessment based on the specifics of each case rather than an overarching preference for either federal authority or states' rights.
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), upholding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), Roberts upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act as a permissible exercise of Congress's taxation powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), arguing that the Constitution does not address same-sex marriage, and the issue should be left to the states.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Roberts wrote the majority opinion that struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, emphasizing states' rights to set election laws without federal oversight.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in King v. Burwell (2015), upholding federal tax credits for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, supporting federal authority over state-established exchanges.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), Roberts dissented, arguing that redistricting should be a legislative process, not an independent commission, emphasizing state control.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), striking down a federal law prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling, supporting states' rights to legislate on the matter.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), Roberts wrote the majority opinion blocking the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, a decision balancing federal and state interests.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), which limited the president's removal power over the head of an independent federal agency, affecting the balance of federal authority.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Roberts wrote the majority opinion upholding the president's travel ban, supporting federal authority over immigration.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), upholding a federal law requiring law schools to allow military recruiters or lose federal funding.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Riley v. California (2014), Roberts wrote the majority opinion that police must obtain a warrant to search a cell phone, protecting individual rights against federal authority.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018), upholding Ohio's process for removing people from voter rolls, a decision supporting states' rights in managing elections.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014), Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates, supporting federal authority in campaign finance.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018), allowing states to collect sales tax from out-of-state sellers, a decision expanding states' taxing authority.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In DHS v. Regents of the University of California (2020), Roberts wrote the majority opinion blocking the Trump administration's attempt to end DACA, balancing state interests and federal immigration policy.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), striking down New York's COVID-19 restrictions on religious services, emphasizing the protection of individual rights over state-imposed limits.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Bond v. United States (2011), Roberts joined the majority opinion that allowed an individual to challenge a federal law on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states and the people.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts dissented in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), arguing against the state's standing to sue the EPA over greenhouse gas regulations, a stance affecting federal environmental authority.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), Roberts wrote the majority opinion against race-conscious student assignment plans, emphasizing states' rights to manage public education without federal mandates.
gpt-4-1106-preview
John G. Roberts, Jr. has demonstrated a pattern of upholding federal health care laws, as seen in his decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act, while also showing respect for state powers and a preference for narrow, case-specific rulings. His decisions indicate a balancing approach, upholding congressional statutes when they align with his interpretation of the Constitution's provisions on federal powers, but also showing deference to state powers and a concern for federalism. His rulings reflect a centrist and cautious approach, often seeking to preserve the status quo and avoid broad, sweeping changes.
Observation:
In the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Roberts upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In King v. Burwell (2015), Roberts authored the majority opinion that upheld tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in the 2020 case California v. Texas, which rejected a challenge to the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his confirmation hearings, Roberts compared the role of a judge to that of an umpire, suggesting a philosophy of calling balls and strikes rather than making the rules, which could imply a more literal interpretation of the Constitution.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, which can influence his interpretation of the Constitution in health care-related cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2007 case, Roberts dissented in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing against the broad interpretation of regulatory powers, which could reflect his views on the limits of federal power in health care.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts voted to limit the scope of the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act in the 2012 Sebelius decision, showing a stance on the balance of state and federal powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During oral arguments for Moyle v. United States, Roberts questioned the extent to which EMTALA preempts state law, indicating his concern for federalism in health care regulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has often sought to avoid sweeping decisions that broadly change the law, which may affect his approach to cases involving health care.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2009 case, Roberts joined the majority in Herring v. United States, which ruled in favor of limiting the exclusionary rule, demonstrating his preference for narrow rulings that may also apply to health care cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a willingness to uphold congressional statutes, as seen in his decision in the Sebelius case, which could indicate deference to legislative intent in health care laws.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania case, Roberts joined the majority in upholding Trump administration rules allowing employers with religious or moral objections to deny contraceptive coverage to employees.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has expressed concern for the institutional integrity of the court, which may lead him to seek middle-ground positions in contentious health care cases to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2015 case, Roberts dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, arguing that the Constitution does not address the issue, which could reflect his approach to other rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, including health care.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a pattern of deferring to states on issues not explicitly covered by the Constitution, which could influence his stance on state versus federal powers in health care regulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2020 case Trump v. Pennsylvania, Roberts concurred with the majority that the administration had the authority to provide exemptions to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, showing his interpretation of administrative powers in health care.
gpt-4-1106-preview
The evidence suggests that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. generally supports religious freedom, often siding with religious entities and individuals in cases where their religious liberty is in conflict with government mandates or regulations. However, his decisions also reflect a nuanced approach that considers the context and competing interests, such as public health and anti-discrimination principles, indicating a balanced judicial philosophy rather than an absolute stance.
Observation:
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), Roberts joined the majority in holding that closely held for-profit corporations can be exempt from regulations on religious grounds.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020), Roberts concurred in granting religious organizations broader exemptions from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), Roberts dissented when the Court struck down New York's COVID-19 restrictions on religious services, emphasizing public health concerns over religious claims.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), Roberts joined the majority in favoring a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds, citing hostility from the state commission.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006), Roberts joined the unanimous decision allowing a religious group to use a hallucinogenic tea as part of their religious ceremonies under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), Roberts wrote the majority opinion stating that a church could not be excluded from a public benefit program solely because of its religious status.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), Roberts wrote the majority opinion that sided with a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples, citing religious freedom.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the Affordable Care Act cases (2012 and 2015), Roberts upheld the healthcare law but also recognized the need for religious accommodations in certain contexts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman (2016), Roberts dissented from the denial of certiorari, suggesting he may have been sympathetic to pharmacists' religious objections to dispensing emergency contraceptives.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Sotomayor v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), Roberts joined the majority in a decision that allowed for-profit companies to deny coverage for contraception based on religious objections.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (2020), Roberts joined the majority in ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, without writing or joining a separate opinion discussing religious liberty implications.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), Roberts wrote the majority opinion that struck down a state ban on providing scholarship funds to students attending religious schools.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Locke v. Davey (2004), Roberts was not yet on the Court, but the decision, which he later cited, allowed states to withhold scholarships from students pursuing degrees in devotional theology, suggesting a nuanced view on funding religious education.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), Roberts joined the unanimous decision that upheld a federal law requiring prisons to accommodate the religious practices of inmates.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Holt v. Hobbs (2015), Roberts joined the unanimous decision that a Muslim prisoner should be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Zubik v. Burwell (2016), Roberts participated in the per curiam decision that vacated lower court rulings on the contraceptive mandate and sought a compromise that would respect religious beliefs while ensuring women's access to contraception.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the denial of certiorari for Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2019), Roberts did not provide a written opinion, but the case involved the balance between religious expression and government endorsement of religion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019), Roberts joined the majority in allowing a cross-shaped war memorial on public land, indicating a willingness to accommodate religious symbols in public spaces.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020), Roberts joined the unanimous decision that allowed individuals to sue federal officials personally for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview

Key Findings

Legal Arguments and Standing

The interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is central to Moyle v. United States, with one amicus brief asserting that EMTALA mandates hospitals to provide emergency abortion care, while another argues that EMTALA does not require such care unless the mother's life is in danger. The U.S. government contends that EMTALA does not protect the unborn in the context of abortion. The Biden administration has issued a memorandum supporting the application of EMTALA to abortion care. The Supreme Court is considering whether EMTALA preempts state laws that restrict emergency abortion care. A preliminary injunction against an Idaho abortion ban was initially granted but later stayed by the Supreme Court, which is now addressing the EMTALA preemption question. Various amicus briefs from advocacy groups, legal experts, and disability rights organizations argue for EMTALA's application to emergency abortion care and against the Idaho law's compatibility with EMTALA and human rights.
Source Facts
  • Attorney General Josh Stein and a coalition of 24 attorneys general filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a preliminary injunction requiring Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortion care under EMTALA.ncdoj.gov | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the National Women’s Law Center argues that EMTALA has always required hospitals to provide emergency abortion care when necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient’s emergency medical condition.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by the Center for Reproductive Rights states that women in Idaho and other states with abortion bans have been denied stabilizing abortion care in hospitals.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by leading disability rights organizations and scholars argues that people with disabilities are more likely to need the emergency abortion care that EMTALA protects but Idaho’s abortion ban criminalizes.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by lawyers with Covington and Burling LLP, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Legal Voice, and Women Enabled International contends that Idaho’s abortion ban frustrates Congress’s core purpose in enacting EMTALA to ensure that hospitals provide emergency medical care to those who most need it and are least likely to be able to access it.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by the NYU School of Law Reproductive Justice Clinic, Pregnancy Justice, and If/When/How highlights that Idaho’s criminal abortion ban attempts to upend the 40-year old status quo of EMTALA by assigning a fetus 'patient' status through misinterpreting EMTALA’s references to an 'unborn child'.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Ipas Impact Network argues that the Idaho law will violate patients’ fundamental human rights by denying abortions in situations contemplated by EMTALA.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief argues that the congressional intent, text, and history of EMTALA make clear that covered hospitals must provide abortion care when it is the 'necessary stabilizing treatment' for a patient's 'emergency medical condition', and that EMTALA clearly preempts conflicting state law.democraticleader.house.gov | Mar 28, 2024
  • The amicus brief explains that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.www.aclu.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Idaho, and the law firm Cooley LLP filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States, arguing that Idaho's position cannot be justified under the Supreme Court's own precedents.www.aclu.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • A lower court granted an injunction preventing Idaho from enforcing a state law that would ban emergency abortions, but the Supreme Court lifted the injunction and took the case in January.www.aclu.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • A consensus appeared to emerge during the Supreme Court arguments that the abortion opponents lack the legal right or standing to sue over the FDA's approval of mifepristone and subsequent actions to ease access to it.thehill.com | Mar 26, 2024
  • The Charlotte Lozier Institute filed an amicus brief in Moyle v. United States arguing that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not require doctors to perform abortions when the mother's life is not in danger.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The United States has argued that EMTALA's 1989 amendments did not alter the statute's basic operation to include protection of unborn children, but the amendments include mentions of the unborn child's health in the context of transferring a laboring mother and in the definition of 'emergency medical condition'.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The United States' preemption argument regarding EMTALA is based on the interpretation that the statute's 1989 amendments did not change the requirement to stabilize the 'medical condition' of the 'individual', which they argue refers only to mothers and infants born alive.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the Idaho abortion ban to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA, and a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against the ban in cases of a medical emergency.nwlc.org | Feb 16, 2024
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to address whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction against Idaho's abortion law, allowing it to go into effect, and subsequently granted the petitions to address the EMTALA preemption question.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide medically necessary care to stabilize patients in emergency situations.www.nytimes.com | Jan 18, 2024
  • The Biden administration issued a memorandum stating that EMTALA applies in cases where abortion is necessary to stabilize a patient.www.nytimes.com | Jan 18, 2024
  • The immediate issue raised by the cases is whether EMTALA protects pregnant women experiencing health-endangering emergencies against state abortion bans that limit emergency care to life-or-death situations.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
  • The Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments in two related cases from Idaho that focus on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and its relationship to state abortion bans.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
    • EMTALA's Scope and Application

    The U.S. Supreme Court is set to determine whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates the provision of emergency abortion care. The Biden administration has asserted that EMTALA applies to stabilize patients in need of abortion care. Legal arguments from various amicus briefs and the U.S. Department of Justice contend that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide such care when necessary to stabilize a patient's emergency medical condition, preempting conflicting state laws. A federal district court has already granted a preliminary injunction against an Idaho abortion ban in cases of medical emergency, and a coalition of attorneys general supports upholding this injunction. The Supreme Court's review of Idaho v. United States, along with Moyle v. United States, will address the preemption of state laws by EMTALA in the context of emergency abortion care.
    Source Facts
  • Attorney General Josh Stein and a coalition of 24 attorneys general filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a preliminary injunction requiring Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortion care under EMTALA.ncdoj.gov | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the National Women’s Law Center argues that EMTALA has always required hospitals to provide emergency abortion care when necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient’s emergency medical condition.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief argues that the congressional intent, text, and history of EMTALA make clear that covered hospitals must provide abortion care when it is the 'necessary stabilizing treatment' for a patient's 'emergency medical condition', and that EMTALA clearly preempts conflicting state law.democraticleader.house.gov | Mar 28, 2024
  • The amicus brief explains that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.www.aclu.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • The Charlotte Lozier Institute filed an amicus brief in Moyle v. United States arguing that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not require doctors to perform abortions when the mother's life is not in danger.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The United States has argued that EMTALA's 1989 amendments did not alter the statute's basic operation to include protection of unborn children, but the amendments include mentions of the unborn child's health in the context of transferring a laboring mother and in the definition of 'emergency medical condition'.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The United States' preemption argument regarding EMTALA is based on the interpretation that the statute's 1989 amendments did not change the requirement to stabilize the 'medical condition' of the 'individual', which they argue refers only to mothers and infants born alive.lozierinstitute.org | Mar 25, 2024
  • The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review Idaho v. United States on April 24, 2024, which will determine if medical providers can continue providing abortions to pregnant women experiencing dire medical conditions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.www.americanprogress.org | Feb 26, 2024
  • The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the Idaho abortion ban to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA, and a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against the ban in cases of a medical emergency.nwlc.org | Feb 16, 2024
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to address whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction against Idaho's abortion law, allowing it to go into effect, and subsequently granted the petitions to address the EMTALA preemption question.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide medically necessary care to stabilize patients in emergency situations.www.nytimes.com | Jan 18, 2024
  • The Biden administration issued a memorandum stating that EMTALA applies in cases where abortion is necessary to stabilize a patient.www.nytimes.com | Jan 18, 2024
  • The immediate issue raised by the cases is whether EMTALA protects pregnant women experiencing health-endangering emergencies against state abortion bans that limit emergency care to life-or-death situations.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
  • The Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments in two related cases from Idaho that focus on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and its relationship to state abortion bans.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
    • Federal vs. State Legal Conflict

    The U.S. Supreme Court is set to determine whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes state laws that ban abortions, particularly in emergency medical situations. Idaho's Defense of Life Act, which restricts most abortions, has been the focal point of legal battles. A federal district court initially blocked the Idaho law, but the Supreme Court later stayed this decision, allowing the law to be enforced. The Court has since agreed to hear Moyle v. United States, which addresses the conflict between EMTALA and state abortion bans. The outcome of this case will clarify the extent to which EMTALA protects the right to emergency abortion care in states with restrictive abortion laws.
    Source Facts
  • Attorney General Josh Stein and a coalition of 24 attorneys general filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a preliminary injunction requiring Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortion care under EMTALA.ncdoj.gov | Mar 29, 2024
  • The amicus brief by the Center for Reproductive Rights states that women in Idaho and other states with abortion bans have been denied stabilizing abortion care in hospitals.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
  • A three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit put the district-court decision on hold and reinstated the abortion ban, but the full Ninth Circuit later reversed this decision and blocked the ban from taking effect pending an appeal.www.au.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • On January 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from Idaho and its legislature to put the district court's decision on hold and allow the abortion ban to take effect.www.au.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • A lower court granted an injunction preventing Idaho from enforcing a state law that would ban emergency abortions, but the Supreme Court lifted the injunction and took the case in January.www.aclu.org | Mar 28, 2024
  • The federal government sued Idaho over its Defense of Life Act, which bans most abortions in the state, and a district court sided with the federal government and blocked Idaho's law.www.becketlaw.org | Feb 27, 2024
  • The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the Idaho abortion ban to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA, and a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against the ban in cases of a medical emergency.nwlc.org | Feb 16, 2024
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to address whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction against Idaho's abortion law, allowing it to go into effect, and subsequently granted the petitions to address the EMTALA preemption question.fedsoc.org | Jan 25, 2024
  • The immediate issue raised by the cases is whether EMTALA protects pregnant women experiencing health-endangering emergencies against state abortion bans that limit emergency care to life-or-death situations.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
  • The Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments in two related cases from Idaho that focus on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and its relationship to state abortion bans.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
    • Other Key Statements
    Source Facts
  • The amicus brief by the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Ipas Impact Network argues that the Idaho law will violate patients’ fundamental human rights by denying abortions in situations contemplated by EMTALA.nwlc.org | Mar 29, 2024
    • Historical background

    Historically, federal courts have ruled that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws restricting abortion in emergency medical situations, as seen in a lower court's injunction against Idaho's abortion ban. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Moyle v. United States, focusing on whether EMTALA overrides Idaho's restrictive abortion law, with precedent suggesting federal law generally takes precedence in such conflicts. The Department of Justice's challenge and HHS guidance affirm EMTALA's supremacy in ensuring emergency abortion care, which may influence the Supreme Court's upcoming decision.
    Source Facts
  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued official guidance that women have the right to a full spectrum of emergency medical care, including abortion and pregnancy care if necessary, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).www.americanprogress.org | Feb 26, 2024
  • The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the state of Idaho, arguing that Idaho's law directly conflicts with parts of EMTALA, which could influence the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Idaho v. United States.www.americanprogress.org | Feb 26, 2024
  • The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on April 24, 2024, in the case of Idaho v. United States, which concerns the conflict between Idaho's near-total abortion ban and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).www.americanprogress.org | Feb 26, 2024
  • EMTALA contains an express preemption provision, which is a statutory clause that ensures federal law overrides state law in the event of a direct conflict.www.americanprogress.org | Feb 26, 2024
  • A federal judge agreed with the Biden administration's argument that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) trumps Idaho's restrictions on abortion and barred the state from enforcing its law to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 21, 2024
  • The U.S. Supreme Court put the federal judge's ruling on hold in early January and agreed to weigh in on the conflict between EMTALA and Idaho's abortion law.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 21, 2024
  • The U.S. Supreme Court has previously upheld the principle that federal law, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), preempts state law in cases of conflict, as established by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.nwlc.org | Feb 16, 2024
  • On August 24, 2022, a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against the Idaho abortion ban, finding that it conflicts with EMTALA and must yield to federal law in cases of medical emergency.nwlc.org | Feb 16, 2024
  • The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of its term on whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) protects pregnant women experiencing health-endangering emergencies against state abortion bans that limit emergency care to life-or-death situations.publichealth.gwu.edu | Jan 11, 2024
  • The Supreme Court has set a case for oral argument in April regarding a lower court decision that held states may not bar hospitals from providing abortions to patients in emergency circumstances.www.aclu.org | Jan 5, 2024
  • The Department of Justice challenged an Idaho abortion ban, arguing that it was preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).www.aclu.org | Jan 5, 2024
  • A lower court ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, holding that EMTALA preempts Idaho's ban to the extent it prevents hospitals from providing care in emergency circumstances.www.aclu.org | Jan 5, 2024
  • The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the question of whether the federal law EMTALA trumps an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.www.scotusblog.com | Jan 5, 2024
    • Weighting reasoning: This reference class directly addresses the issue in question
    Weighting reasoning: As potential swing voters it will be important to consider how Roberts and Kavanaugh have previously voted
    Weighting reasoning: This reference class directly addresses the issue in question
    Weighting reasoning: Assigning a lower weight because "ruling conservatively" may not be interpreted as politically conservative.
    Weighting reasoning: Slightly less weight because a conservative approach to abortion could be motivated by a justice's traditionalist interpretation of the Constitution or motivated by conservative political and social leanings
    Historical forecast: N/A
    FUTURESEARCH Forecast
    25% probability
    3 to 1 against
    I began with a historical forecast of 31%, and then revised it to 25%. The Court's temporary hold on the lower court's decision suggests a preference for state law over federal law, which indicates a lower likelihood of upholding emergency abortion care protections. The effect of the political climate and public criticism is uncertain and doesn’t warrant an adjustment.