Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Press Release: Justice Barrett: ‘Idaho’s Ability to Enforce its Law Remains Almost Entirely Intact’

By • June 30, 2024

The following press release was sent out by the Office of Attorney General Raúl Labrador. Press releases do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

[BOISE] – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to return our case, State of Idaho v. United States of America, to the 9th Circuit for further consideration due to the Biden administration’s shift in position to say that EMTALA’s reach is far more modest than it appeared when the Supreme Court first granted certiorari and a stay. While the Court lifted its stay of the injunction, it noted that the injunction will not stop Idaho from enforcing our law in the vast majority of circumstances. The case will now return to the 9th Circuit, which had selected the case for en banc consideration by an 11-member panel.

The following quote may be attributed to Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday in State of Idaho v. United States of America to decline to rule on the merits of the case, but instead send the case back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for further consideration:

“The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit today after my office won significant concessions from the United States that Justice Barrett described as ‘important’ and ‘critical.’ Today, the Court said that Idaho will be able to enforce its law to save lives in the vast majority of circumstances while the case proceeds. The Biden administration’s concession that EMTALA will rarely override Idaho’s law caused the Supreme Court to ask the 9th Circuit for review in light of the federal government’s change in position. Justice Barrett wrote, those concessions mean that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act ‘remains almost entirely intact.’ The 9th Circuit’s decision should be easy. As Justice Alito explained well: the Biden Administration’s ‘preemption theory is plainly unsound.’ I remain committed to protect unborn life and ensure women in Idaho receive necessary medical care, and I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what our law requires. We look forward to ending this Administration’s relentless overreach into Idahoans’ right to protect and defend life.”

The following quote may be attributed to Idaho Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy Josh Turner, who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in April:

“I could not be more proud of what our office has accomplished in this case so far. We forced the Biden Administration to make major concessions before the Supreme Court that it did not want to make, and those concessions are going to save many unborn lives. The people of Idaho should not be fooled by the misleading headlines in the media. Instead, I encourage everyone to read the Court’s opinions for themselves. The Court may have decided to “punt” today on the merits given the Biden Administration’s “important” and “critical” concessions, but I have zero doubt after reading the decision, after standing before the justices and answering their questions, and after listening to the DOJ’s best arguments to defend the Biden Administration’s legally untenable position, that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is not preempted by EMTALA and will be vindicated in full.”

# # #

Amazon Outlet

Tags: Abortion, Biden Administration, EMTALA, Idaho Defense of Life Act, State of Idaho v. United States of America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

4 thoughts on “Press Release: Justice Barrett: ‘Idaho’s Ability to Enforce its Law Remains Almost Entirely Intact’

  1. So Idaho is hell bent on protecting the unborn at the same time it is legal for Idaho parents to choose death for their living children. How can Idaho politicians claim to protect lives when it is legal for patents to deprive the children of basic life saving medical care?
    Idaho politicians are all hypocrites when it comes to being pro-life.

    1. I don’t understand: How is it legal for Idaho parents to choose death for their living children? To what exactly are you referring?

      (I’m not disagreeing with your assertion — yet — but need clarification to understand it.)

      1. Ignore Linda Martin’s totalitarian attitude. She is determined to eliminate freedom of religion and force everyone to go to doctors. In Idaho you are not reqired to take you kids to doctors, and faith healing is acceptable treatment. Last I checked medical error was the third leading cause of death, it may be even higher now. Linda is either ignorant of that fact, or fully knows that fact and is trying to get more children killed. Forcing a good or service, such as vaccinations or requirement of doctors, on someone is illegal yet that is exactly what lieing Linda Martin (she claims to be from a church that practices faith healing but she never was associated with it) wants. I wonder how much kickback she is getting for her efforts to trample on our rights and freedoms and force unwanted and potentially deadly medical treatment on the population.

    2. When doctors are infallible and medical researchers return to the doctrine of “FIRST, DO NO HARM” we can revisit this. Until then, do some research on how many people unnecessarily died from hospital COVID treatments and the so-called “vaccinations.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *