Background
Dr. Stacy Seyb sued Idaho officials seeking to prevent them from prosecuting him for performing an abortion when, in his good-faith medical judgment, continuing the pregnancy posed a non-negligible risk of serious and lasting harm to the pregnant woman’s health but was not life-threatening. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that the historical legal tradition protected health-preserving abortions from prosecution.
The district court enjoined enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act when continuing a pregnancy posed such a health risk or a risk that the pregnant woman would die from self-harm. It later stayed the injunction as to everyone except Dr. Seyb. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador and Ada County Prosecuting Attorney Jan Bennetts sought a complete stay pending appeal, while Dr. Seyb moved to vacate the partial stay.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction in full pending appeal. The majority concluded that the state officials made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits because the district court’s historical analysis was unlikely to be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
The majority also found a strong showing of irreparable injury, reasoning that Idaho has a substantial interest in enforcing its laws limiting abortion to circumstances authorized by state law and in protecting fetal life. It held that this interest outweighed the potential harm to Dr. Seyb during the appeal and considered the state’s showing especially strong as to abortions based on a risk of suicide. The court denied Dr. Seyb’s motion to vacate the partial stay, treated No. 26-6068 as a cross-appeal, and consolidated it with Nos. 26-5360 and 26-5558.
Judge Wardlaw concurred, reasoning that the broad language and rationale of Dobbs foreclosed the asserted constitutional right, while noting that rational-basis challenges to abortion restrictions might arise in another case. Judge Berzon dissented, arguing that Dobbs addressed elective abortion rather than the distinct life-or-health protection recognized in earlier Supreme Court decisions, and that Idaho had not shown either likely success or irreparable harm sufficient to justify a stay.
Key Takeaways
- The order does not finally decide whether the Constitution protects access to abortions needed to prevent serious and lasting harm to a pregnant woman’s health; it stays the injunction while that merits question is appealed.
- The majority found Idaho likely to succeed because it viewed the district court’s recognition of a health-preserving abortion right as difficult to reconcile with Dobbs.
- The stay permits Idaho to enforce the challenged abortion statutes against Dr. Seyb during the appeal, and all three related appeals will proceed together.
Why It Matters
The order restores Idaho’s ability, while the appeal is pending, to enforce its abortion restrictions in circumstances covered by the district court’s injunction. It also frames a significant post-Dobbs dispute: whether that decision eliminated every constitutional abortion protection or left open a distinct claim involving abortions needed to preserve a pregnant patient’s life or health.
Because the ruling concerns emergency relief rather than a final merits judgment, its immediate importance lies in the governing rules during the appeal and in the panel’s preliminary assessment of the parties’ positions. The consolidated appeals will determine whether the district court’s historically grounded constitutional ruling can stand.