During the Supreme Court hearing on a Biden administration challenge to aspects of Idaho’s strict abortion ban, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented arguments seeking to sway conservative justices who had previously ruled in favor of states being able to prohibit the procedure. The case stemmed from the Justice Department’s response to the high court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022 and revolved around federal mandates for hospital emergency room care conflicting with abortion bans that do not exempt situations where a woman’s health is at risk but her life is not in immediate danger.
Prelogar emphasized a conflict between Idaho’s law and the federal statute known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act but portrayed it as a narrow one. She clarified that the administration’s stance did not aim to interfere with Idaho’s ability to criminalize abortions outside of medical emergencies addressed by EMTALA. To secure a victory, the Biden administration would require the support of two members of the court’s conservative bloc. With Justice Brett Kavanaugh displaying sympathies towards Idaho, the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett could be pivotal.
During the hearing, Roberts and Barrett posed tough questions for both sides of the case. The court’s far-right wing attempted to frame the case as a federal overreach into state power, possibly to sway the swing justices. On the other hand, the court’s liberals focused on the severe medical emergencies faced by pregnant women that were not covered under Idaho’s limited life-of-the-woman exemption in the ban. As the justices seemed divided, Roberts and Barrett emerged as potential key votes in the abortion case.