A federal appellate court shot down on Thursday a rogue judge’s bid to “defy” the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision permitting lawmakers to regulate abortion policy.
In a newly released order, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused an August ruling by Idaho-based Senior District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. The Clinton appointee seemingly infringed on Idaho’s pro-life law by holding that the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses “establish a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health.”
Winmill later narrowed his decision to only apply to the doctor who filed the suit challenging the state’s pro-life statute after Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed an appeal in the case.
Idaho law allows exceptions for abortion in rare circumstances such as rape, incest, and danger to a mother’s life. According to the Family Research Council, however, Winmill’s ruling seemingly expands that last exception by adding a woman’s “mental health (not just her life, as the law stipulates).”
Backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, Labrador filed an emergency application for stay last week asking the 9th Circuit to temporarily pause Winmill’s decision. The Republican attorney general argued that the Clinton appointee’s injunctions “defy” the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and “prevent Idaho from enforcing its democratically enacted laws to protect unborn babies and their mothers.”
“Dobbs allows states to ‘regulat[e] or prohibit[ ]’ abortion and overruled the Roe/Casey framework that erected an absolute bar to restricting ‘therapeutic’ abortions,” the filing reads. “Just like in Roe and Casey, the district court arrogated the people’s power to itself. This Court should heed Dobbs and stay the district court’s injunctions to allow the democratic process to play out.”
The Gem State asked the appellate court to rule on its motion by Sept. 4 “so it can seek further review if necessary.”
In its two-page order, the 9th Circuit said that Winmill’s decision is momentarily stayed “pending briefing and oral argument on Appellants’ Emergency Motions for a Stay Pending Appeal.” The temporary pause “does not reflect the Court’s views on the Emergency Motions for a Stay Pending Appeal,” the court added.
The appellate court further instructed the appellee to file his response by Sept. 8, while also giving the law’s defenders until Sept. 15 to file a reply brief if they so choose. The court will hold oral arguments via video conference “as to the propriety of a stay pending appeal” on Sept. 22, with each side receiving 30 minutes to make their case.
“Idaho can enforce the law again while this case is heard, which means unborn children and their mothers in our state are protected under Idaho law and doctors can continue making the good-faith judgments the law has always allowed,” Labrador said in a statement. “The Supreme Court settled in Dobbs that this decision belongs to the people of Idaho and their elected representatives. We will continue to defend it as far as needed.”
Thursday’s ruling comes weeks before Idaho voters will be asked to weigh a pro-abortion ballot initiative (Proposition 1) on the state’s 2026 fall ballot.
As described by Ballotpedia, a “yes” vote supports enshrining a “right” to so-called “reproductive freedom and privacy” into state statute and effectively overturning Idaho’s pro-life law. The measure states that the government can’t “interfere with … personal decisions” involving “childbirth care; contraception; fertility treatment; miscarriage care; and prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum care.”
The group behind the initiative has raised nearly $2.8 million in support, while the chief opposition campaign has raised $1.6 million, according to an Aug. 24 local media report.
