Supreme Court dismisses case on Idaho's EMTALA law; AHA expresses disappointment over lack of clarity for healthcare providers, urging courts to protect emergency caregivers

The Supreme Court June 27 dismissed a case about whether an Idaho law can coexist with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care for those in an emergency medical condition. In so doing, the Court did not rule on the merits of the joined cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States. 

“While we are pleased that the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss these cases as improvidently granted will restore the temporary stay on Idaho’s law, we are disappointed that physicians, nurses, and other clinicians across the country still do not have needed clarity,” AHA General Counsel Chad Golder said in a statement. “Caregivers must be able to exercise their professional judgment about a patient’s care as federal law requires under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) without the fear of criminal prosecution. We continue to urge courts to protect clinicians as they seek to provide emergency care to their patients.”

In March, the AHA, joined by the Association of American Medical Colleges and America’s Essential Hospitals, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Moyle v. United States in support of the federal government’s challenge to the Idaho statute. The AHA and AAMC previously filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Idaho district court.