Mintz recently filed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to protect access to emergency care for pregnant women under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in the consolidated cases Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States that the Court will hear on April 24th. The firm’s brief was part of a 27-amicus-brief effort overseen by the National Women’s Law Center and other advocacy groups to ensure the Court heard from a broad coalition on the devastating consequences of removing federal protections guaranteeing a right to emergency abortion care for pregnant patients in the Supreme Court case.

The consolidated cases raise the question of whether a state abortion law conflicts with EMTALA, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat and provide stabilizing care for all individuals who arrive at the emergency room experiencing emergency medical conditions. 

Filed on behalf of procedure and jurisdiction legal scholars, and co-authored by Boston College Law School Professor Kent Greenfield, the brief argues that the US Supreme Court should dismiss the case and not reach the merits in the current dispute. The facts on the ground have changed considerably—both the Idaho legislature and the Idaho Supreme Court have changed the interpretation of the Idaho law in the time since the lower court ruled. The brief argues that the US Supreme Court should wait until lower courts have done their full review before weighing in. 

“It is imperative that we preserve women’s rights to emergency reproductive care across the country,” said Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee Susan M. Finegan. “This brief is one of several pro bono projects at the firm that address women’s health post-Dobbs.”

Finegan worked on the Mintz pro bono team that drafted and filed the amicus brief, which included Emily Kanstroom Musgrave, Meredith M. Leary, Jessica Goudreault, Evan Piercey, Jennifer Yoonjee Kim, Mitchell J. Clough, and Michael T. Alario.