The Network for Public Health Law (Network) announced today it has joined an amicus brief in the Moyle v. United States case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This case challenges whether Idaho can legally prevent pregnant individuals from accessing emergency medical care mandated under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The Network joined the American Public Health Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association and over 100 public health and legal scholars in supporting the U.S. government as amici curiae in this important case. The effort was coordinated by the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.
Enacted in 1986, EMTALA is a federal law ensuring that no one is denied urgent medical care at emergency departments. It obliges Medicare-participating hospitals to conduct necessary screenings and provide stabilizing treatment before transferring patients to another facility.
“Idaho’s law criminalizes nearly all abortion care, which can be crucial for stabilizing pregnant individuals facing emergencies,” said Joanna Suder, Senior Attorney for Reproductive Health headquartered in the Western Region at the Network. “EMTALA’s federal requirements preempt conflicting state laws, underscoring the need for emergency physicians to administer necessary care, including abortion, when medically necessary.”
The brief argues that Idaho’s interpretation of EMTALA contradicts the law’s original intent, which prioritizes the health of both the pregnant person and their unborn child during emergencies. The 1989 amendments to EMTALA extended protections throughout labor, affirming care for both the individual and their unborn child.
The case highlights misunderstandings about the role of emergency departments, which are designed for urgent care, not elective procedures. Abortion as an emergency measure is rare, but Idaho’s statute risks denying essential care to pregnant women, as it imposes undue restrictions on emergency medical providers.
The Network urges the court to uphold EMTALA’s clear mandates, ensuring that restrictive state laws do not compromise critical emergency care.
About the Network for Public Health Law
The Network works with local, tribal, state, and federal public health policy makers, officials, attorneys, and practitioners, as well as community organizations, advocates, and other partners in community health across the country to help build their capacity to improve health and advance health equity through the use of law and policy. We provide evidence-based solutions and best practices through technical assistance, as well as information, resources, consultation, and training. Learn more at networkforphl.org.
The Network is supported by grants from some of the nation’s leading health philanthropies, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the de Beaumont Foundation, and Arnold Ventures. The Network also receives project funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation.
For further information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Nina Belforte
Deputy Director, Strategic Communications
nbelforte@networkforphl.org
 announced today it has filed an amicus brief in the Moyle v. United States case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This case challenges whether Idaho can legally prevent pregnant individuals from accessing emergency medical care mandated under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The Network joined the American Public Health Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association and over 100 public health and legal scholars in supporting the U.S. government as amici curiae in this important case.){kind=link}