The Trump administration intends to drop a lawsuit filed by the previous administration that sought to permit Idaho healthcare practitioners to perform emergency abortions, a new court filing shows.
The court filing, which includes a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney’s email explaining the department’s intentions, came on March 4. On March 5 at 3 p.m., a federal district judge in Boise is scheduled to hear a motion from a healthcare system in a related case for a preliminary injunction allowing its physicians to perform emergency abortions in the state.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act forbids abortions except when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or during the first trimester when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. Performing an abortion can lead to five years in prison and result in the revocation of a medical doctor’s license.
The federal government’s lawsuit, known as United States v. Idaho, was filed in U.S. District Court in Idaho in August 2022.
The Biden administration, which left office on Jan. 20, took the position that federal policy on emergency healthcare should prevail over state-level abortion restrictions.
The case is about whether the state law conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which forbids so-called patient dumping, the practice of hospitals refusing emergency treatment to people who can’t afford to pay for medical services.
The Biden administration argued the Idaho law violates EMTALA, which requires that emergency room patients in hospitals that accept Medicare be provided stabilizing care. The previous administration argued stabilizing care included abortions. That administration also said that state-level abortion laws such as Idaho’s have confused patients and healthcare professionals and delayed critical care for pregnant women.
The Biden administration argued EMTALA requires hospitals in Idaho to provide emergency medical care, including abortions, to anyone who requests it.
In September 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed Winmill’s decision, finding that EMTALA and the state statute didn’t conflict, but two months later, the court reinstated the judge’s order.
The full Ninth Circuit was preparing to rehear the case, but in January 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and granted Idaho’s request to lift the injunction, pending the outcome of the case at the high court.
The high court did not rule on the merits of the underlying lawsuit but its decision allowed emergency abortions to proceed in Idaho, while the challenge to the state’s abortion law moved through the lower courts.
Judge Winmill is scheduled on March 5 to hear a hospital network’s request for a temporary restraining order against the Idaho law in a related lawsuit known as St. Luke’s Health System Ltd. v. Labrador.
Wendy Olson, one of St. Luke’s attorneys, filed a declaration on March 4 advising Winmill that the health care system’s legal team learned the day before that the federal government intends to seek dismissal of United States v. Idaho.
In the email, Schwei is advising a law firm that he is “one of the attorneys for the United States in United States v. Idaho.”
He also writes that “the United States would like to dismiss its claims in the above case, without prejudice, pursuant to [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], which requires ‘a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.’”
Without prejudice means the claim may be refiled in the future.
“I stated that, if possible, the United States would like to file the Stipulation of Dismissal on Wednesday, March 5, 2025,” Schwei wrote.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Schwei, the DOJ’s press office, and Labrador.
No replies were received by publication time.
