By LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk, according to Bloomberg News, which said a copy of the opinion briefly posted Wednesday on the court’s website.

The document suggests the court will conclude that it should not have gotten involved in the case so quickly and will reinstate a court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health, Bloomberg said. The document was quickly removed from the website.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that a document was inadvertently posted Wednesday.

“The Court’s Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website. The Court’s opinion in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States will be issued in due course,” court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.

The case would continue at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if the high court dismisses proceedings.

The finding may not be the court’s final ruling, since it has not been officially released.

The Biden administration had sued Idaho, arguing that hospitals must provide abortions to stabilize pregnant patients in rare emergency cases when their health is at serious risk.

Most Republican-controlled states began enforcing restrictions after the court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

Idaho is among 14 states that outlaw abortion at all stages of pregnancy with very limited exceptions. It said that its ban does allow abortions to save a pregnant patient’s life and federal law doesn’t require the exceptions to expand.

The Supreme Court had previously allowed the measure to go into effect, even in medical emergencies, while the case played out. Several women have since needed medical airlifts out of state in cases in which abortion is routine treatment to avoid infection, hemorrhage and other dire health risks, Idaho doctors have said.

The high court’s eventual ruling is expected to have ripple effects on emergency care in other states with strict abortion bans. Already, reports of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked following the high court’s 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit came under a federal law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. It’s called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.

Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare, so emergency room doctors in Idaho and other states with bans would have to provide abortions if needed to stabilize a pregnant patient and avoid serious health risks like loss of reproductive organs, the Justice Department argued.

Idaho argued that its exception for a patient’s life covers dire health circumstances and that the Biden administration misread the law to circumvent the state ban and expand abortion access.

Doctors have said that Idaho’s law has made them fearful to perform abortions, even when a pregnancy is putting a patient’s health severely at risk. The law requires anyone who is convicted of performing an abortion to be imprisoned for at least two years.

A federal judge initially sided with the Democratic administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

___

David G. Savage | Los Angeles Times (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for simply taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities—for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like—that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson said.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors.

The Supreme Court justices have faced heavy criticism recently for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy patrons. Justice Clarence Thomas regularly took lavish vacations and private jet flights that were paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took a fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 aboard a private plane owned by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire.

The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.

The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted of taking the $13,000 payment because of his role in helping his patrons win city contracts.

Congress in 1986 extended the federal bribery law to cover officials of state of local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it crime to “corruptly solicit or demand…or accept…anything of value of $5,000 or more…intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction.”

Related Articles

Supreme Court dismisses Republican suit claiming Biden officials censored social media

Sarah McBride poised to become the first transgender member of Congress

Melania Trump won’t move back into the White House if Trump wins: report

‘We are protesting both of them.’ Presidential debate draws activists’ ire

Laugh (or cringe) at these history-making moments from presidential debates

Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Indiana in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.

Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.

An FBI investigation led to Snyder’s indictment, his conviction and a 21-month prison sentence.

The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but he lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago.

The high court agreed to hear his appeal in Snyder vs. U.S. because appeals court in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law to bribery only and not gratuities that were paid later.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of public corruption laws and often in unanimous rulings. The common theme is that the justices concluded the prosecutions went beyond the law.

Last year, the court was unanimous in overturning the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of taking illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.

Four years ago, the justices were unanimous in overturning the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Cristie, a Republican, who were charged with conspiring to shut down lanes to the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The court said they were wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.

In 2016, the court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. While the governor took $175,000 in gifts from a business promoter, he took no official actions to benefit the donor, the court said.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.