A federal appeals court permitted Idaho to continue enforcing its abortion restrictions while the state pursues an appeal of a lower court injunction.
The Ninth Circuit said Idaho had made “a strong showing of likely success on the merits,” temporarily suspending an order that had limited enforcement of the state’s Defense of Life Act. Attorney General Raúl Labrador welcomed the stay and said Idaho’s abortion restrictions would remain in effect as intended.
The Ninth Circuit’s October 30 order suspended an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill while the appeal proceeds. A divided appellate panel concluded that Idaho had made a strong showing it was likely to prevail on the merits.
The dispute concerns Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act. The state generally prohibits abortion with limited statutory exceptions, including certain circumstances when a physician determines a procedure is necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant patient.
The underlying suit challenged the extent to which those laws could be enforced when physicians believed continuing a pregnancy threatened significant harm to a patient’s health, even when death was not imminent.
In August, the district court restricted enforcement against doctors acting in good faith under circumstances involving serious or lasting health risks. Attorney General Raúl Labrador appealed, arguing the injunction went beyond constitutional protections recognized by the Supreme Court.
“I am thrilled that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to prevent the enforcement of the District Court’s injunction against Idaho’s Defense of Life Act during the appeal process,” Labrador said. He also welcomed the panel’s conclusion that the state had a strong likelihood of succeeding.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and returned broad authority over abortion regulation to individual states. Litigation continues over how those restrictions apply in medical emergencies.
Judge Marsha Berzon dissented from the appellate order, taking a different view of the constitutional issues and the risks to patients affected by the restriction.
The stay is procedural rather than a final judgment on the underlying claims. Idaho can enforce its laws while briefing and consideration of the appeal continue into 2027.
The decision was procedural rather than a final judgment on the constitutional issues. The underlying dispute involves the extent of medical exceptions when pregnancy poses serious risks to a woman’s health. The case continues through the appeals process.