Federal appellate judges heard oral arguments Tuesday regarding the scope of exemptions in Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan, examined whether a lower court ruling expanding those exemptions should be reinstated.
Idaho law currently prohibits most abortions except to prevent the mother’s death or in cases of first-trimester rape or incest involving a police report. Physicians who perform prohibited procedures face felony charges and civil lawsuits carrying minimum penalties of $20,000.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Mathew Hoffmann represented the state, arguing for full enforcement of existing statutes. He contended that expanding exemptions lacks historical precedent and would create an “abortion-on-demand regime.” Hoffmann emphasized that the Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to abortion care.
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said during the proceedings.
The case stems from earlier rulings by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who initially blocked enforcement in cases involving serious health risks or life threats due to self-harm. Winmill later narrowed that order to protect only abortions performed by Dr. Stacy Seyb. After Attorney General Raúl Labrador appealed, the Ninth Circuit paused Winmill’s order, restoring full enforcement of the ban.
Stephanie Toti of the Lawyering Project argued on behalf of Dr. Seyb, asserting that the Idaho ban violates rights to life and health by lacking sufficient exemptions. She described the requested injunction as narrow but vital for patient access.
The judges questioned whether the 2022 Dobbs decision permits courts to expand state abortion exemptions. Judge Callahan challenged the self-harm argument, noting there is no constitutional right to end one’s own life.
“We have a right to life, but you don’t have a right to kill yourself, right?” Judge Callahan asked.
Toti responded that patients seeking abortion care to avoid psychiatric relapse intend to remain alive. Judge Wardlaw inquired whether Attorney General Labrador planned to issue guidelines for physicians; Hoffmann stated sufficient guidance already exists.
The panel also addressed the upcoming November 3 general election, where voters will decide on Proposition 1, a ballot initiative to repeal the ban. Judge Callahan asked if the measure would moot the legal challenge. Hoffmann argued that because the initiative would not take effect until January and its passage is uncertain, it does not resolve the current case.