Supreme Court Backs Off Deciding Whether EMTALA Pre-empts Idaho's Abortion Ban

In Moyle v. United States, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated an injunction that had been issued by an Idaho federal district court (see prior posting) which barred Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.  The Supreme Court did this in a per curiam order that vacated a previous stay of the injunction issued by the Supreme Court and which returned the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that certiorari had been improvidently granted.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring with the dismissal, saying in part: 

Idaho’s arguments about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, either emergency relief or our early consideration of this dispute....

[Idaho] mainly argues that EMTALA never requires a hospital to “offer medical treatments that violate state law,” even when they are needed to prevent substantial health harms.... In my view, that understanding of EMTALA is not “likely to succeed on the merits,” and so cannot support a stay of the injunction.

Justice Jackson concurred in the portion of Justice Kagan's opinion that responded to Justice Alito's dissenting opinion. 

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

A grant of certiorari before judgment presumes that further proceedings below are unnecessary to the Court’s resolution of the question presented. That was a miscalculation in these cases, because the parties’ positions are still evolving. The United States has clarified that EMTALA’s reach is far more modest than it appeared when we granted certiorari and a stay. Idaho law has materially changed since the District Court entered the preliminary injunction, and, based on the parties’ arguments before us, it seems that the framing of these cases has not had sufficient opportunity to catch up...

On top of that, petitioners have raised a difficult and consequential argument, which they did not discuss in their stay applications, about whether Congress, in reliance on the Spending Clause, can obligate recipients of federal funds to violate state criminal law.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, saying in part:

This Court typically dismisses cases as improvidently granted based on “circumstances . . . which ‘were not . . . fully apprehended at the time certiorari was granted.’” ... This procedural mechanism should be reserved for that end—not turned into a tool for the Court to use to avoid issues that it does not wish to decide.

The reasons that justified our grant of certiorari in these cases still hold true today.... The importance of recognizing Congress’s judgments in EMTALA remains as imperative as ever. The United States is still hamstrung in its ability to enforce federal law while States pass laws that effectively nullify EMTALA’s requirements. And, on the ground, healthcare providers “have been all but paralyzed by legal uncertainties,” placing pregnant patients at risk while they are waiting to be transferred out of State to receive the care they need....

If anything, the need for a clear answer to the Supremacy Clause question has only increased in the intervening months....

Despite the clarity of the legal issue and the dire need for an answer from this Court, today six Justices refuse to recognize the rights that EMTALA protects....

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas and in part by Justice Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

 At no point in its elaboration of the screening, stabilization, and transfer requirements does EMTALA mention abortion. Just the opposite is true: EMTALA requires the hospital at every stage to protect an “unborn child” from harm....

For those who find it appropriate to look beyond the statutory text, the context in which EMTALA was enacted reinforces what the text makes clear. Congress designed EMTALA to solve a particular problem—preventing private hospitals from turning away patients who are unable to pay for medical care.... And none of many briefs submitted in this suit has found any suggestion in the proceedings leading up to EMTALA’s passage that the Act might also use the carrot of federal funds to entice hospitals to perform abortions. To the contrary, EMTALA garnered broad support in both Houses of Congress, including the support of Members such as Representative Henry Hyde who adamantly opposed the use of federal funds to abet abortion.....

EMTALA is an exercise of Congress’s spending power. And when Congress relies on its authority to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, special rules apply....

The potential implications of permitting preemption here are far-reaching. Under the Government’s view, Congress could apparently pay doctors to perform not only emergency abortions but also third-trimester elective abortions or eugenic abortions. It could condition Medicare funds on hospitals’ offering assisted suicide even in the vast majority of States that ban the practice....

NBC News reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Religious Broadcasters Challenge to Royalty Rates

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Docket No. 23-927, certiorari denied 6/24/2024). (Order List.) At issue in the case was whether the Copyright Royalty Board violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when the royalties it set for non-commercial religious broadcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet were 18 time higher than the rates it set for the secular National Public Radio. (See prior related posting and ADF's press release for additional details.) Here are links to all the documents filed in the case.

Supreme Court Will Review Question of Sovereign Immunity for Taking of Assets in Holocaust

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Republic of Hungary v. Simon, (Docket No. 23-867, certiorari granted 6/24/2024) (Order List), a long-running case in which Holocaust survivors have sued to recover the value of property which Hungary expropriated from them during the Holocaust. At issue is whether the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies so that the suit can be pursued in American courts. Here the seized assets were liquidated, and the proceeds were placed in the Hungarian treasury.  Under the FSIA, those proceeds must have been used in a commercial activity in the United States in order for U.S. courts to have jurisdiction. At issue in the appeal are questions of who must show that commercial nexus.  The D.C. Circuit below in its 2023 decision (full text) which is on appeal began its opinion as follows:

In 1944, as World War II neared its end, the Hungarian government implemented an accelerated campaign to exterminate its remaining Jewish population. Within a matter of months, the government systematically executed over half a million Jews—roughly two-thirds of the Jewish population in Hungary at the war's outset. This state-perpetrated genocidal campaign ranks among the greatest crimes in human history.

The questions raised by these appeals bear on whether survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust may hale the Hungarian government and its instrumentalities into United States courts to answer for a subset of the wrongs they committed—namely, their confiscation of property from victims of the Holocaust.

The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings in the case.

Certiorari Denied in Connecticut Repeal of Religious Exemptions from Vaccination Requirements

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (Docket No. 23-643, certiorari denied 6/24/2024). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of Connecticut's repeal of religious exemptions from its mandatory vaccination laws, while retaining medical exemptions. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in United States v. Skrmetti, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 23-477, certiorari granted 6/24/2024). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, reversed a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state law. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Supreme Court Says Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge FDA's Rules on Abortion Drugs

In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Sup. Ct., June 13, 2024), the U.S. Supreme court today held unanimously that plaintiffs who are challenging the FDA’s rules on prescribing and distributing the abortion drug mifepristone lack standing to bring the lawsuit.  The Court said in part:

Here, the plaintiff doctors and medical associations are unregulated parties who seek to challenge FDA’s regulation of others. Specifically, FDA’s regulations apply to doctors prescribing mifepristone and to pregnant women taking mifepristone. But the plaintiff doctors and medical associations do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do anything or to refrain from doing anything….

The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone. But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court. Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions. The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes. 

“No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s opinion, and Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

AP reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review of Standing Decision in Challenge to School's Policy Supporting Transgender Students

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (Docket No. 23-601, certiorari denied 5/20/2024) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision (full text of the Aug. 14, 2023 opinion) held that parents who did not allege a substantial risk of injury lacked standing to challenge school board Guidelines that allowed schools to support transgender students and to withhold information from parents about this when the family is not supportive of the student's gender transition. The district court had upheld the Guidelines. (See prior posting).  SCOTUSblog reports on the denial of certiorari.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Federal Emergency Treatment Law Preempts State Abortion Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Moyle v. United States, (Docket No. 23-726) and Idaho v. United States, (Docket No. 23-727). (Audio and Transcript of full oral arguments). The case poses the question of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing emergency treatment to patients preempts state abortion bans when such treatment would involve pregnancy termination. The Court took the case without waiting for 9th Circuit review. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

Cert. Filed In Challenge To Michigan's Blaine Amendment

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Hile v. State of Michigan, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 4/4/2024). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an amendment placed in the Michigan Constitution in 1970 that prohibits public funds from being used to aid private or religious schools does not violate the equal protection rights of parents who cannot use Michigan Educational Savings Program to send their children to religious schools. (See prior posting.) The Lion reports on the petition for review.

Supreme Court Hears Oral ArgumentsToday On Abortion Pill Restrictions

 The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in two related cases-- FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.  At issue is the FDA's actions in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. (See prior posting.) Links to briefs and pleadings in the cases can be found on the SCOTUSblog case pages (Danco, Alliance).  Live audio broadcast of the arguments beginning at 10:00 AM EDT can be accessed here. SCOTUS blog has further background on the issues being argued today. This posting will be updated to link to the transcript and recording of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments. NBC News reports on the oral arguments.

Catholic Bishops Mobilize Special Prayer Efforts for Supreme Court's Decision on Abortion Pill Availability

On March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and a companion case Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. (SCOTUSblog case page.) At issue are challenges to the Food and Drug Administration's relaxation of restrictions on the administration and use of the abortion drug mifepristone. (See prior posting.) On March 14, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter (full text) calling for the recitation of a special prayer beginning the day before oral arguments and daily until the date in June when the case is decided.  The letter reads in part:

The USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities is inviting Catholics to join a focused effort of prayer for the end of abortion and the protection of women and preborn children, beginning on March 25, the eve of the oral arguments, and the anniversary of St. John Paul II’s landmark, pro-life encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium vitae). In particular, we will invoke the intercession of St. Joseph, Defender of Life....

The Tablet and Catholic World Report both report on the Bishops' Nationwide Invitation to Prayer.

Certiorari Denied in Case of Anorexic Transgender Teen Placed Under State's Care

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in M.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, (Docket No. 23-450, certiorari denied, 3/18/2024) (Order List). In the case, an Indiana state appellate court upheld the removal to state custody of a 16-year-old transgender child who was suffering from anorexia. The teen's parents, because of their Christian religious beliefs, refused to accept their child's transgender identity. The appellate court also upheld an order barring the parents from discussing the child's transgender identity during visitation.  (See prior posting.)  USA Today reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Virginia Legislature Passes Symbolic Bill Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

In Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin has until tomorrow to decide whether or not to sign HB 174/ SB 101 (full text) which provides:

No person authorized by § 20-14 to issue a marriage license shall deny the issuance of such license to two parties contemplating a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such parties. Such lawful marriages shall be recognized in the Commonwealth regardless of the sex, gender, or race of the parties.

Religious organizations and members of the clergy acting in their religious capacity shall have the right to refuse to perform any marriage.

As reported by Dogwood, the bill was introduced because of concern that the U.S. Supreme Court might overrule its caselaw protecting same-sex marriages. Even if the Governor signs the bill, its impact on same-sex marriages would only be symbolic since the Virginia Constitution Sec. 15-A prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages in the state and would take precedence over the statute if the U.S. Supreme Court returned the issue of recognition of same-sex marriages to the states.

Cert. Filed In Religious Broadcasters' Appeal of Mandatory Royalty Rates

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 2/23/2024).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a July 28, 2023, opinion (full text) upheld the royalty rates set by the Royalty Board for calendar years 2021 through 2025 that must be paid by various classes of webcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet. In its certiorari petition, the Religious Broadcasters set out the following as one of the Questions Presented for review:

Recently, the Board adopted rates requiring noncommercial religious webcasters to pay over 18 times the secular NPR-webcaster rate to communicate religious messages to listeners above a modest 218-average listener threshold. The D.C. Circuit upheld that disparate burden based on the Board treating some secular webcasters as poorly as religious webcasters. The result is suppression of online religious speech....

Its decision presents ... important legal questions: 

1. Whether approving noncommercial rates that favor NPR’s secular speech over religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or the First Amendment....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.

Supreme Court Grants Review of EMTALA's Impact on State Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review an Idaho federal district court decision (see prior posting) that preliminarily enjoined the state of Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Supreme Court Order (full text) comes in the companion cases of Moyle v. United States, (Docket No. 23-726) and Idaho v. United States, (Docket No. 23-727) (certiorari granted, 1/5/2024). In September 2023, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court's injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.)  However, the full 9th Circuit in an en banc Order vacated the panel's opinion that stayed the injunction and granted en banc review. In yesterday's Order, the Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs to bypass review by the 9th Circuit and present the case to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court also again stayed the district court's preliminary injunction that limited enforcement of Idaho's abortion ban. It granted review on the Question Presented in Idaho's Application:

Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho's Defense of Life Act.

The Court set arguments for the April 2024 argument session. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page that will link to pleadings in the Supreme Court.

AP reports on the Supreme Court's decision. Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) criticizing the Supreme Court's action, saying in part:

Today’s Supreme Court order allows Idaho’s extreme abortion ban to go back into effect and denies women critical emergency abortion care required by federal law. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has enabled Republican elected officials to pursue dangerous abortion bans like this one that continue to jeopardize women’s health, force them to travel out of state for care, and make it harder for doctors to provide care, including in an emergency. These bans are also forcing doctors to leave Idaho and other states because of laws that interfere with their ability to care for their patients. This should never happen in America.

Supreme Court Grants Review of FDA's Rules on Prescribing and Distributing Abortion Pill

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two related cases, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-235, cert. granted 12/13/2023) and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-236, cert. granted, 12/13/2023). (Order List.) (SCOTUSblog case pages 23-235, 23-236) In the single opinion applying to both cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld portions of a Texas federal district court's orders that stayed actions taken by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 2016 action increased the gestational age when the drug can be used and lightened certain other dosage and prescribing restrictions. In 2021, in connection with the Covid epidemic, the FDA removed the in-person prescribing requirement for mifepristone, allowing it to be sent by mail. The court found that doctors have standing to challenge these actions, among other things citing conscience injuries to objecting doctors.  Challenges to two other FDA actions on mifepristone were rejected on standing and statute of limitations grounds. (See prior posting.) 

The Supreme Court denied review in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, (Docket No. 23-395, cert. denied, 12/13/2023) which sought review of the FDA's original approval of mifepristone in 2000. (SCOTUSblog case page.)

The district court's orders are not currently in effect because in April, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the orders while appeals work their way through the courts. (See prior posting.) 

SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's grants of review.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

Today by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Tingley v. Ferguson, (Docket No. 22-942, certiorari denied 12/11/2023). In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to sidestep this framework by concluding that counseling is unprotected by the First Amendment because States have traditionally regulated the practice of medicine....

This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last.

Justice Alito filed a brief opinion dissenting from the denial of review. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that he would grant the petition for certiorari.

SCOTUS' New Ethics Code Includes Guidance on Involvement with Religious Organizations

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the promulgation of a Code of Conduct (full text) for Supreme Court Justices. Several provisions in the Code give guidance on a Justice's involvement with religious and other organizations. The new Code provides in part:

Canon 2 (C): A Justice should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin....

Canon 3(B): ... A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding... [when] The Justice knows that the Justice, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Justice’s spouse or minor child residing in the Justice’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy.... An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization....

Canon 4(A): A Justice may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and government activities.... However, a Justice should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office, interfere with the performance of the Justice’s official duties, reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below....

In deciding whether to speak or appear before any group, a Justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public. Except in unusual circumstances, no such appearance will be created when a Justice speaks to a group of students or any other group associated with an educational institution, a bar group, a religious group, or a non-partisan scholarly or cultural group....

Canon 4(B): A Justice may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations:

(1) A Justice should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Justice or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

(2) A Justice should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment ....

Canon 4(C): A Justice may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fundraising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. Use of a Justice’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letter head, including when used for fundraising or soliciting members, is permissible if comparable information and designations are listed for others. Otherwise, a Justice should not personally participate in fundraising activities....

AP reports on the Court's new ethics code.

Cert. Filed In Abortion Sidewalk Counseling Dispute

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (Sup. Ct., filed 10/10/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenging Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. In its opinion, the 3rd Circuit agreed that the city did not have a policy or custom prohibiting one-on-one sidewalk counseling. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.