In a thrilling bit of legal gymnastics, the Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care actually does apply to pregnant patients experiencing medical crises. However, they quickly clarified that—just kidding—their ruling settles exactly nothing. The decision, which came in a 6 to 3 vote, essentially punted the case back to the lower courts, like a teenager being asked to do the dishes who responds by suddenly developing a deep interest in existential philosophy.
The case in question involved a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, which apparently even the emergency room had trouble understanding. The Biden administration argued that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals are legally obligated to provide stabilizing treatment, which might occasionally include an abortion if, say, a pregnant woman is bleeding desperately in front of them. Idaho officials countered with the firm belief that any federal meddling in their abortion ban was an insult to state rights and to the memory of their pioneer ancestors who underwent medical procedures with only whiskey and a strong grip on a saddle horn.
In the end, the Court vacated the previous decision blocking Idaho’s abortion law, but also lifted a stay that had reinstated it, resulting in both sides managing to be equally confused and dissatisfied. The Court essentially agreed to disagree and tossed the matter back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with all the enthusiasm of someone handing off a ticking alarm clock asking for snooze.
“Today’s Court avoids a definitive ruling, concluding instead that it should not have taken this case at this juncture,” Justice Barrett wrote with the delicacy of a judge trying not to step on anyone’s ideological toes while walking barefoot on a chessboard of political expectations.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, seemingly under the impression that when someone’s uterus is trying to evacuate in an emergency room, time is of the essence and not just a suggestion. Justice Jackson, in particular, pointed out that vacating the prior ruling while refusing to rule on the merits left pregnant patients in Idaho in a sort of legal limbo—a place that sounds tropical and fun, but is actually more like being abandoned on hold in a Kafkaesque health care bureaucracy.
Governor Brad Little, who once declared Idaho the most “pro-life” state in the nation, praised the decision in a tone that suggested someone had just successfully defended their lawn from trespassers rather than decided the proper scope of federal emergency health care requirements. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar managed to keep a straight face while expressing disappointment that the Court had not recognized the need for clarity when it comes to whether people should bleed out in ERs waiting for legal memos.
So to sum up, the nation’s highest court has assured us all that EMTALA does apply, except when it doesn’t, and pregnant people rushing to the hospital in need of emergency abortions should simply consult their local lawyer and a Magic 8 Ball before entering triage.
Justice delayed is justice denied, unless of course it just needs a little more time to think things through on a summer recess.