Moyle v. United States: The (In)decision Addressing the Public Health Crisis in America’s Emergency Rooms

Presley Dawson

Pro-choice and pro-life arguments have pervaded American sociopolitical dynamics surrounding the availability of abortion access in America for decades. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion, deepened societal divisions —leaving states to navigate the contentious task of creating and enforcing abortion laws. The core of this tension can be tied to one question: What is abortion? Americans, and their state and federal legislatures, may define this term differently. At the root of what defines abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. However, as science has advanced, as the legal landscape has changed, and as the medical profession has evolved, conceptualizations of “abortion” have not remained stagnant.

This Comment argues that Moyle v. United States—a case in which the Supreme Court declined to decide if an Idaho law that criminalized and limited abortion conflicted with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”)—should have been decided on the merits, because doing so would allow for the advancement of public health and would be consistent with existing case law interpreting EMTALA. Part I discusses how abortion rights were granted, slowly fragmented, and then eventually rescinded by the Supreme Court. Additionally, Part I contextualizes EMTALA by providing insight into the federal law, which was then furthered by the evaluation of EMTALA by the supplementary opinions in Moyle v. United States. Upon evaluating the per curiam and supplementary opinions issued in Moyle, Part I concludes with a contextualization of abortion access and direct consequences after Moyle.

Part II ultimately prescribes why and how the Court should move forward in engaging in preemption inquiries of EMTALA conflicting with state laws regulating abortion. First, Part II analyzes how case law prior to Dobbs interpreted EMTALA, notably in the context of alleged EMTALA violations relating to abortions. Additionally, it analyzes the effects of the indecision of Moyle, and how an imminent decision is necessary to further the public health and public interest. Finally, Part II offers a potential path forward for the Court to guide future decisions on EMTALA preemption, utilizing what has been gleaned from pre-Dobbs EMTALA case law, the parties’ arguments in Moyle, and the continuing public impact resulting from the Court’s indecision.