Per Curiam

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________

Nos. 23–726 and 23–727 _________________

MIKE MOYLE, SPEAKER OF THE IDAHO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS 23–726 v. UNITED STATES

IDAHO, PETITIONER 23–727 v. UNITED STATES ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2024]

PER CURIAM. The writs of certiorari before judgment are dismissed as improvidently granted, and the stays entered by the Court on January 5, 2024, are vacated. It is so ordered. Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 1

KAGAN, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________

Nos. 23–726 and 23–727 _________________

MIKE MOYLE, SPEAKER OF THE IDAHO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS 23–726 v. UNITED STATES

IDAHO, PETITIONER 23–727 v. UNITED STATES ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2024]

JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, and with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins as to Part II, con- curring. An Idaho law prohibits abortions unless necessary to pre- vent a pregnant woman’s death; the law makes no excep- tion for abortions necessary to prevent grave harms to the woman’s health, like the loss of her fertility. Before the law could take effect, the Federal Government sued the State under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). That law requires a Medicare-funded hospital to provide essential care to patients experiencing medical emergencies. The Government’s suit contended that EMTALA preempts the Idaho abortion law in a narrow class of cases: when the state law bars a hospital from per- forming an abortion needed to prevent serious health harms. The District Court, believing the Government was likely 2 MOYLE v. UNITED STATES

KAGAN, J., concurring to prevail in its suit, entered a preliminary injunction. Dur- ing the year that the injunction was in place, women in Idaho were able to obtain abortions in medical emergencies. Idaho meanwhile sought to get the injunction lifted. When the en banc Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the injunction, Idaho filed an emergency application here. This Court stayed the injunction and granted the State’s petition for certiorari before judgment. With that stay in effect, Idaho could enforce its abortion ban even when terminating a pregnancy was necessary to prevent grave harm to the woman. The on-the-ground impact was immediate. To ensure appropriate medical care, the State’s largest provider of emergency services had to airlift preg- nant women out of Idaho roughly every other week, com- pared to once in all of the prior year (when the injunction was in effect). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 66, 113. I concur in the Court’s decision today to vacate its stay and dismiss the writ of certiorari before judgment as im- providently granted. I do so because Idaho’s arguments about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, ei- ther emergency relief or our early consideration of this d