Federal Appeals Court Pauses Lower Court Ruling That Allowed Patients Facing Serious Health Risks to Obtain Abortions in Idaho
Pause will remain in effect until the court issues a final ruling on the appeal, which is expected next year
10.30.26 (PRESS RELEASE) — Earlier today, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Idaho’s request to pause a lower court ruling that allowed pregnant patients at risk of serious and lasting injury or death to obtain abortion care in the state.
In an unsigned order, the majority expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade, “plowed the same ground and held that ‘the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.’”
Dobbs, however, considered whether the Constitution encompasses a broad right to pre-viability abortion in all circumstances. It did not address whether the Constitution encompasses a narrower right to abortion when continued pregnancy poses a serious risk to a pregnant person’s life or health.
In dissent, Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote: “Idaho has not made a strong showing either that Dobbs overruled the separate holdings in Roe and Casey regarding abortions preserving the life or health of the mother or that history and tradition does not support a right to such abortions. And Idaho’s demonstration of irreparable harm from the district court’s injunction pending resolution of this appeal is decidedly weak, particularly when balanced against the harm to Dr. Seyb’s patients. For those reasons, I respectfully, but emphatically, dissent.”
The legal challenge was brought by the Lawyering Project and Legal Voice on behalf of Dr. Stacy Seyb (he/him), an Idaho maternal-fetal medicine specialist.
“Laws that criminalize abortion make pregnancy less safe,” said Dr. Stacy Seyb, the plaintiff in the legal challenge. “I will continue to advocate for the right of every patient to make important medical decisions without government interference.”
Today’s order addressed a set of preliminary motions and does not end the case. It merely preserves the status quo while the Ninth Circuit considers the merits of the underlying appeal. The court is expected to issue its final ruling on the merits, after full briefing, sometime next year.
“People don’t surrender their constitutional rights when they become pregnant, and life and health are the most basic rights that Americans have,” said Stephanie Toti, Executive Director of the Lawyering Project. “Although we are deeply disappointed in today’s ruling, it’s a temporary setback. We look forward to demonstrating to the appeals court that access to medically indicated abortion care is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition and essential to its scheme of ordered liberty.”
“Pregnant people have a long-established right to protect themselves during pregnancy,” said Wendy Heipt, Legal Voice’s senior litigation counsel. “Today’s ruling is not the final word, and we will continue to use every tool at our disposal to fight for the right to access essential healthcare.”
Case History
Dr. Seyb filed this federal lawsuit against the state and local officials charged with enforcing Idaho’s abortion bans in 2024, arguing that abortion remains constitutionally protected when sought for medical reasons. In June 2025, Attorney General Raúl Labrador intervened as a defendant.
In August 2026, a federal district court found that the U.S. Constitution protects a pregnant person’s right to abortion when their life or health is threatened. It blocked the Idaho Attorney General and Ada County Prosecuting Attorney from enforcing Idaho’s abortion bans against doctors treating patients with serious medical conditions, including mental health conditions that put patients at risk of suicide or overdose.
Those officials appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed emergency motions to stay the district court’s ruling. On September 3, the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed the district court’s ruling while it considered the motions and heard oral argument.
As written, Idaho’s abortion bans prohibit abortion care throughout pregnancy except in some — but not all — cases where abortion is necessary to save a pregnant person’s life and some — but not all — cases where a pregnant person survived a sexual assault. They bar doctors from providing abortions in a wide variety of circumstances where continued pregnancy jeopardizes a patient’s health or a patient is carrying an embryo or fetus with a life-limiting condition.
Notably, the Defense of Life Act endangers the lives of pregnant people battling psychiatric illness by prohibiting abortion in circumstances where continued pregnancy poses a risk of death from self-harm, even though suicide and overdose are among the leading causes of death for pregnant and post-partum people in the United States. According to Idaho’s own maternal mortality review committee (MMRC), from 2018 to 2024, the most recent period for which data are currently available, mental health conditions constituted the most common underlying cause of pregnancy-related death in Idaho.
After publishing its 2023 annual report, the MMRC (operating under the auspices of the Idaho Board of Medicine) changed the methodology it uses to count deaths from suicide in an apparent attempt, in the wake of Dr. Seyb’s lawsuit, to hide how many of these deaths are occurring in Idaho.
In its 2023 report, the MMRC noted that: “Idaho’s 2023 Pregnancy-Related Death (PRD) findings highlight that women with pre-existing health conditions have a higher risk of dying during pregnancy and for a year after childbirth …. Three (3) of the five (5) Pregnancy-Related Deaths had a mental health condition as a pre-existing condition.” The 2024 report, however, indicates that the MMRC is no longer classifying deaths from suicide as pregnancy-related deaths if the victim of maternal mortality had a pre-existing history of suicidal ideation or attempted suicide. This change is out of step with how MMRCs across the country treat maternal deaths from suicide and is likely to result in undercounting the number of those deaths that are pregnancy related.
###
