The Supreme Court’s Abortion Case: A Tale of Overreach and Backpedaling
In the whirlwind of controversial decisions issued by the Supreme Court in its final days, one case, Moyle v. United States, stands out for its unusual journey. While other rulings made headlines with their sweeping pronouncements, Moyle v. United States was dismissed by the court, a decision that speaks volumes about the internal dynamics and perhaps, a nascent shift within the conservative bloc. This case, focused on Idaho’s attempt to circumvent a federal law protecting emergency abortion care, reveals a story of reckless overreach and potential internal discord within the court.
Key Takeaways:
A Case of Improvident Grant: The Supreme Court initially granted certiorari before judgment in Moyle v. United States, a rare move that brought the case to the high court before it could be fully adjudicated by lower courts. The court ultimately dismissed the case, admitting the decision to accept it was a "miscalculation."
The Alito Dissent: Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, penned a scathing dissent. His fiery language and lack of evidence for some claims suggest a deep-rooted personal conviction that went beyond the legal merits of the case.
- A Possible Shift Within the Conservative Bloc: While Alito’s dissent was joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with the majority decision to dismiss the case. This hints at a possible fracture within the conservative bloc.
A Reckless Decision:
The case centered around Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which severely restricts access to abortion, potentially violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The federal law dictates that hospitals must provide emergency care, including abortion, when a woman’s life or serious health condition, including her future fertility, is at risk. After a federal district judge ruled in favor of EMTALA, Idaho appealed the decision, arguing that the state has a "sovereign interest in protecting innocent human life." This appeal was promptly fast-tracked to the Supreme Court through a rare procedure known as certiorari before judgment, bypassing the usual appellate process.
While the court’s rules for this procedure emphasize the need for cases of “imperative public importance,” Idaho’s argument centered around the state’s desire to uphold its restrictions on abortion access. The court’s decision to grant certiorari before judgment, despite the lack of established legal precedent and unanswered questions about Idaho’s law, signaled a clear bias towards the state’s conservative position.
Alito: A Dissent Fueled by Obsession:
Justice Alito’s dissent stands out not only for its length but also for its impassioned and often inflammatory language. He accused the Biden administration of an "end run" around the Dobbs decision and characterized the federal law as a "federal super-statute on the issue of abortion." He went a step further, stating that the court’s decision to re-establish the injunction blocking Idaho’s law would "likely" lead to more abortions. This claim, unsupported by evidence and lacking any legal basis, revealed Justice Alito’s deeply personal views on the matter.
His assertion that the EMTALA statute was intended to protect the unborn child, rather than the pregnant patient, defied context and legal interpretation. This reading, prioritizing the "personhood" of the fetus over the woman’s health and well-being, reflects the conservative movement’s broader agenda to erode reproductive rights.
The Cracks in the Consensus:
While Justice Alito’s dissent was joined by some conservative colleagues, the subsequent dismissal of the case suggests that not all of his conservative colleagues were on board with his radical interpretation of EMTALA. This apparent shift within the conservative bloc is noteworthy, particularly given the court’s aggressive dismantling of administrative regulations and its willingness to grant sweeping immunity to political figures, as evidenced in other recent decisions.
The decision to dismiss Moyle v. United States may be seen as an attempt to avoid an unpopular ruling on abortion in an election year. However, the internal disagreement and Justice Alito’s overreach point to a deeper, ongoing struggle between the court’s conservative justices over the extent of their power and the limits of their approach.
A Glimpse of Hope:
Though the case has been dismissed, its legacy is far from over. It serves as a stark example of the court’s willingness to break from established legal norms and to prioritize ideological agendas over the principles of fairness and due process. It also sheds light on the potential for internal conflict among the court’s conservative justices as they grapple with the consequences of their own decisions.
As more abortion cases reach the Supreme Court, this case could be relegated to a footnote. However, it serves as a valuable reminder of the court’s unchecked power, the potential for discord within its ranks, and the importance of holding those in power accountable. While the outcome of this specific case may appear insignificant, the insights it offers into the court’s internal dynamics and its struggle with its own ambitious agenda offer a glimmer of hope for advocates fighting for reproductive rights and a just system of law.
