--- title: Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Abortion Ban description: The Supreme Court will hear a case on whether Idaho can enforce its near-total abortion ban in medical emergency situations under EMTALA. canonical: https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/ author: Nik Popli article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2024-04-23T11:00:00.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-24T17:29:31.325Z article:section: Politics og:title: Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban og:description: could establish a significant precedent regarding whether emergency medical care can be denied to a pregnant woman in distress in order to save the fetus. og:url: https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt79d282f8c33289c1/698a55c747ca3837b63bd6a8/GettyImages-1246022326.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: US-NEWS-IDAHO-COURT-ABORTION-ID og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban twitter:description: could establish a significant precedent regarding whether emergency medical care can be denied to a pregnant woman in distress in order to save the fetus. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt79d282f8c33289c1/698a55c747ca3837b63bd6a8/GettyImages-1246022326.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=bd7ff69e-69c6-4c16-b3a3-ae97a1239dd8&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | Subscribers | Open rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | 540,000 | 45.6% | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 430,000 | 50.7% | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Daily | 240,000 | 54.1% | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Tuesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 40,000 | 31.7% | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | 85,000 | 37.0% | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | 40,000 | 34.2% | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | 25,000 | 28.6% | Source: TIME, August 2026. Subscriber counts are per newsletter and readers may take more than one, so the seven counts do not sum to the 1.1 million+ unique newsletter audience. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Highest open rate | 54.1%, Health Matters | TIME, August 2026 | | Largest list | 540,000, The Brief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=bd7ff69e-69c6-4c16-b3a3-ae97a1239dd8&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=bd7ff69e-69c6-4c16-b3a3-ae97a1239dd8&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (daily health), Worth Your Time (culture, twice weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, three times a week), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement.  by [Nik Popli](https://time.com/author/nik-popli/)  ## Nik Popli Staff Writer Apr 23, 2024 11:00 AM UTC  A sign taped to a hanger hangs near the Idaho Capitol in Boise after protests against the state over new abortion laws, which effectively banned the procedure. A sign taped to a hanger hangs near the Idaho Capitol in Boise after protests against the state over new abortion laws, which effectively banned the procedure. Sarah A. Miller—Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service/Getty Images  by [Nik Popli](https://time.com/author/nik-popli/)  ## Nik Popli Staff Writer Apr 23, 2024 11:00 AM UTC The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a case on whether Idaho can enforce its near-total abortion ban in medical emergency situations under a federal law that requires most hospitals to treat patients with life-threatening conditions. The case marks the second abortion-related challenge to come before the Justices this term, following the Court's decision in _Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization_ in a 2022 ruling that left abortion policy to the states. Legal experts anticipate that the Court's ruling in the Idaho case, called _Moyle v. U.S._, could establish a significant precedent regarding whether emergency medical care can be denied to a pregnant woman in distress in order to save the fetus. At the heart of the case lies the clash between Idaho’s stringent abortion restrictions and the federal [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)](https://time.com/6207168/idaho-texas-abortion-cases-emtala/), which mandates hospitals to stabilize patients facing life-threatening conditions regardless of their ability to pay. Idaho contends that EMTALA's language requires equal treatment for both the pregnant patient and the "unborn child," arguing that its near-total abortion ban does not conflict with federal legislation. The Justices must decide whether they believe Idaho’s law conflicts with the federal EMTALA law. If they do, then the fundamental legal question they will have to consider is whether federal law supersedes state law when the two are in conflict, says Jill Habig, a former legal adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris in the California Attorney General’s office who now runs the Public Rights Project. While courts have consistently ruled in favor of federal law under the Supremacy Clause, the Idaho case attempts to challenge this bedrock principle. “What we've learned post-_Dobbs,_ and especially with this right-wing court, is that things that should be simple legally are not actually simple in practice,” Habig says. The legal battle in Idaho is part of a broader wave of challenges following the 2022 _Dobbs_ decision that [overturned _Roe v. Wade_](https://time.com/6189476/abortion-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/), when a so-called “trigger” law automatically came into effect in Idaho prohibiting all abortions except in cases where it is deemed necessary to prevent the mother's death. In legal filings, Idaho has noted that the term "abortion" is absent from the EMTALA statute enacted by Congress in 1986, arguing that abortion care was not intended asone of the required stabilizing treatments under the law. The statute does, however, include the phrase "unborn child," which the state contends necessitates consideration of the fetus's well-being when addressing medical emergencies. **Read More:** [_How Kate Cox Became a Reluctant Face of the Abortion-Rights Movement_](https://time.com/6960387/kate-cox-abortion-rights-interview/) “Idaho law is perfectly consistent with EMTALA, which provides explicit protections for ‘unborn children’ in four separate places,” the state’s Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement. “The notion that EMTALA requires doctors to perform abortions is absurd.” Lawyers for Idaho contend that the federal law only requires doctors to administer stabilizing treatments that are "available" at a particular hospital, and since abortion is largely prohibited under state law, it is effectively unavailable. The Biden Administration sued Idaho over its abortion ban in 2022, resulting in a temporary injunction preventing its enforcement in emergency care situations, but the case has raised questions about the ongoing struggle between federal and state authority in shaping reproductive healthcare policy. [Should the court side with Idaho's interpretation](https://time.com/6208656/abortion-emtala-texas-idaho-emergency-situations/), it would mark the first instance of a federal statute granting individual rights to a fetus and could pave the way for other Republican-led states to enact similar bans even in emergency situations. Fourteen states have already banned abortion since the fall of _Roe v. Wade_, and while each of these bans include some kind of exception for the mother’s life, patients, doctors, and lawyers have run into challenges [interpreting the statutes’ language](https://time.com/6320148/allie-phillips-abortion-lawsuit-tennessee/). Many states permit abortions in a “medical emergency” but do not offer a concrete definition of that term, says Molly Duane, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights. As a result, some women seeking abortions have been [turned away from hospitals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/28/abortion-bans-medical-exceptions/) in life-threatening situations. “What we know from the real experiences of patients and medical providers is that doctors are terrified to rely on these exceptions when years of prison time and loss of their medical license are on the line,” Duane says, adding that Idaho’s abortion law could enable state officials to challenge doctors on whether their patient is close enough to death to receive an abortion. **Read More:** [_What Blocking Emergency Abortion Care in Idaho Means for Doctors Like Me_](https://time.com/6968774/idaho-abortion-doctors-essay/) Several Idaho-based medical providers wrote in amicus briefs that the state’s abortion law does not match up with common medical judgment, forcing doctors to violate their oath and delay medical care until their patient’s condition deteriorates to the point that an abortion is necessary to save their lives. Some OB-GYNs have decided to leave Idaho over fear of being prosecuted for treating patients, according to the briefs. “There is no practice of OB-GYN in which abortion as a health saving life-saving measure can be taken out,” says Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, a family medicine obstetrician in Idaho and co-president of the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s latest abortion-related case is poised to send a signal to states regarding their autonomy in shaping abortion policy. A ruling in favor of Idaho, legal experts say, could enable other states to pass strict abortion bans with fewer exceptions. “We've seen across the country a race from anti-abortion states to pass more and more extreme bans,” Habig says, “and I think we can expect other states to follow Idaho's lead if the Supreme Court allows Idaho to trump federal law and women's health.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/"},"headline":"Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban","datePublished":"2024-04-23T11:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-24T17:29:31.325Z","description":"It could establish a significant precedent regarding whether emergency medical care can be denied to a pregnant woman in distress in order to save the fetus.","url":"https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/","keywords":["Supreme Court","News Desk"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt79d282f8c33289c1/698a55c747ca3837b63bd6a8/GettyImages-1246022326.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Nik Popli","jobTitle":"Staff Writer","url":"https://time.com/author/nik-popli/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt79d282f8c33289c1/698a55c747ca3837b63bd6a8/GettyImages-1246022326.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"US-NEWS-IDAHO-COURT-ABORTION-ID","caption":"US-NEWS-IDAHO-COURT-ABORTION-ID","creditText":"Sarah A. Miller—Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/supreme-court/","name":"Supreme Court"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/","name":"Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban"}}]}] ```