Lawyer Imani Gandy, who also serves as the editor-at-large for Rewire News, lambasted the justices, saying, "The Supreme Court just basically butt-dialed us."
Read Also: Samuel Alito’s arrogance is of Biblical proportions
The Supreme Court's elimination of Roe brought a number of debates to the forefront as doctors and hospitals grow increasingly nervous about what is and isn't legal around reproductive health.
The case before the Court challenged an Idaho law written to provide a dilation and curettage (D&C) only in cases where death is imminent. It does not take into consideration serious physical harm, including infertility, which can result if the care is not provided in time.
Liberal justices demanded that Idaho take all of those factors into account and allow such options.
Meanwhile, three conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts want to send it back to the lower courts.
"They're gonna dismiss as improvidently granted (DIG) the EMTALA case if the mistakenly posted opinion is the final one," anticipated self-described "lapsed lawyer" Mike Sacks wrote in a thread on X.
DIGs is a reference to vote to "dismiss the case as improvidently granted," SCOTUS Blog explained.
"My guess is they're DIGing it because Kavanaugh and Barrett wanted to pretend Idaho's abortion ban does permit emergency room doctors to provide health-stabilizing abortions, but the liberals refused to join," Sacks continued. "And because they didn't blink, lower court ruling holds and EMTALA controls."
"If the DIG order is the final decision, then what happens next is this case goes back to the en banc 9th Circuit, which will likely affirm the district court's finding that EMTALA trumps Idaho's ban," he explained. "Idaho could try again to get this SCOTUS to review, but see current gridlock."
"So...6-3 to block Idaho from enforcing its ban when EMTALA protections kick in...but 5-4 to DIG the case, with Jackson saying the Court shoulda decided the thing now (perhaps suggesting a faith that Chief/Kav/Barrett woulda come around to the liberals?)" he wondered.
Based on what was written, Sacks also said that what the conservatives asked during oral arguments essentially telegraphed where they fell on the decision.
Lawyer Robert J. DeNault specifically referenced the part concurrence and part dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
"Justice Jackson lays out the Supreme Court’s manipulation in the abortion case — the case went so poorly for conservatives that three justices basically just want to start over so they don’t have to have to rule against Idaho OR agree with its positions. Weak, bizarre," he said on X.
In 2023, the Center for Reproductive Rights explained that with its ruling eliminating Roe, the Court "uprooted deeply embedded liberty rights doctrine, and instead embraced a dangerous method of constitutional interpretation."
Abortion rights activist Olivia Julianna wrote on X: "Sam Alito is arguing that women are never entitled to abortion care, 'no matter how much that procedure is needed to prevent… death.' The next President could appoint two more SCOTUS justices. Ask yourself if you’re willing to let these people control the court for a generation."
According to Gandy, the Idaho decision is likely only stalled for now, thanks to the far-right court in Texas.
"If SCOTUS dismisses the Idaho case as improvidently granted, that would be great for emergency room abortions... for about a year," she wrote on X. "Texas has an EMTALA case sitting in the 5th Circuit right now. Soooooo... mifepristone and EMTALA back at the Court next term is going to be a hoot."
After reading the dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Gandy lambasted the conservatives for "flat out lying in their opinions."
"I’m real tired of it," she wrote on X. "Sam Alito knows that the EMTALA statute requires stabilizing treatment for a pregnant woman OR her fetus, not a pregnant woman AND her fetus. The statute was amended because hospitals were turning away pregnant patients whose fetuses needed stabilizing care even if they themselves did not. The law doesn’t require a physician to prioritize the life of a fetus over the life of a pregnant person. But Sam Alito wants it to. He’s singing the personhood blues. So he just lies about what the statute says. Textualist, my shiny Black ass. He’s a corrupt liar."
The Court still has just under 10 decisions left to publish in the following two days, or they must indicate they intend to extend into July.
