Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances, but there are exceptions for when there is a life-threatening condition that places the mother at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
The decision is a significant victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and comes just three months after the court dismissed a similar case involving Idaho, a move that was criticized as a preelection punt that offered no clarity on the issue.
The justices did not detail their reasoning, as is usual when denying taking up a case. There were no public dissents.
The case centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.
The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.
Texas sued the administration shortly after the guidance was issued, arguing the law was improperly applied, and the administration did not follow the appropriate rulemaking process.
A lower court ruled in favor of Texas, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed.
In asking the Supreme Court not to hear arguments, Texas insisted the case was merely about how the administration issued the EMTALA guidance, rather than the substance of the law itself.
In the earlier case, the Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion ban, arguing it conflicted with EMTALA. But in this case, Texas sued the Department of Health and Human Services.
Texas said its case is different from Idaho because Texas law does have a “health” exception for emergency abortions, whereas Idaho initially had exception for the life of a woman but not her health.
