A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a ruling by an Idaho-based judge that had expanded the state’s abortion law beyond what lawmakers wrote, restoring the statute’s original limits while litigation continues.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Thursday pausing an August decision by Senior District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee, who had ruled that the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses create “a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health.” Winmill later limited the ruling’s effect to the doctor who brought the challenge, after Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador appealed.
Idaho’s law permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. According to the Family Research Council, Winmill’s order appeared to broaden that last exception to include threats to a woman’s mental health, not just her life as the statute specifies.
Labrador, represented with support from Alliance Defending Freedom, filed an emergency application last week asking the appeals court to stay the ruling. His filing argued that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states and that Winmill’s injunction improperly overrode Idaho’s democratic process.
“Dobbs allows states to ‘regulat[e] or prohibit[ ]’ abortion and overruled the Roe/Casey framework that erected an absolute bar to restricting ‘therapeutic’ abortions. Just like in Roe and Casey, the district court arrogated the people’s power to itself. This Court should heed Dobbs and stay the district court’s injunctions to allow the democratic process to play out.”
The state had asked the 9th Circuit to rule by Sept. 4 so it could pursue further review if needed. In a two-page order, the court granted a temporary stay of Winmill’s ruling “pending briefing and oral argument on Appellants’ Emergency Motions for a Stay Pending Appeal,” while clarifying that the pause does not signal how it will ultimately rule.
The court set a schedule for the case going forward: the appellee must respond by Sept. 8, the law’s defenders may file a reply by Sept. 15, and oral arguments on whether the stay should remain in place will be held by video conference on Sept. 22, with each side given 30 minutes.
Labrador said the ruling means Idaho’s law is back in force while the case proceeds.
“Idaho can enforce the law again while this case is heard, which means unborn children and their mothers in our state are protected under Idaho law and doctors can continue making the good-faith judgments the law has always allowed. The Supreme Court settled in Dobbs that this decision belongs to the people of Idaho and their elected representatives. We will continue to defend it as far as needed.”
A Ballot Fight Looms
The court’s decision comes as Idaho voters prepare to consider Proposition 1 this fall, a ballot initiative that would enshrine a state-law right to what it calls “reproductive freedom and privacy,” effectively overturning the state’s current abortion restrictions. Per Ballotpedia, the measure would bar government interference in personal decisions covering childbirth care, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum care.
Campaign finance figures reported by local media on Aug. 24 show the group backing the initiative has raised nearly $2.8 million, while the leading opposition campaign has raised $1.6 million.
Add comment