Moyle v. United States
United States Supreme Court
144 S. Ct. 2015 (2024)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Idaho passed a law that prohibited all abortions except those necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. Before the law went into effect, the federal government (plaintiff) sued Idaho state officials (defendants), including Mike Moyle, arguing that the Idaho law was preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA). EMTALA required hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide essential care to patients having medical emergencies. The government argued that the provision of such essential care included performing an abortion to treat a pregnant woman for severe heart failure, preeclampsia, preterm premature rupture of membranes, sepsis, and placental abruption, regardless of whether a doctor could determine that the abortion was definitely necessary to save the woman’s life. The district court found that the federal government was likely to prevail at trial and therefore issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the Idaho law from taking effect while the suit was pending. After the court of appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction, the Idaho officials filed an emergency application for review by the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari for expedited review on the merits and stayed the preliminary injunction while review was pending.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Kagan, J.)
Concurrence (Barrett, J.)
Dissent (Alito, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.