Federal appellate judges heard oral arguments Tuesday regarding the scope of Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened virtually to review a lawsuit challenging the state’s enforcement policies.
Idaho law currently prohibits most abortions, allowing exceptions only to prevent maternal death or in cases of first-trimester rape and 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 the statute as written. He opposed expanding exemptions to cover serious health or mental health risks, noting a lack of historical precedent for such broad medical discretion.
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said.
The legal challenge originated with Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill previously blocked enforcement in cases involving serious risks to a mother’s health or life, including self-harm. Judge Winmill later narrowed that order to protect only procedures performed by Dr. Seyb.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador appealed the district court’s decision, prompting the Ninth Circuit panel to place a hold on Winmill’s order. Stephanie Toti of the Lawyering Project argued that expanded exemptions are necessary for patient access to care.
The three-judge panel—Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan—questioned whether the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs decision permits lower courts to expand state abortion exemptions. Judge Callahan asked if Proposition 1, which appears on the November 3 general election ballot, would moot the legal challenge.
“We have a right to life, but you don’t have a right to kill yourself, right?” Callahan asked during the hearing.
Hoffmann stated that Proposition 1 would not take effect until January and emphasized that its passage remains uncertain. The state maintains that current laws should stand regardless of potential ballot measure outcomes.