SCOTUS: when they're needed, they stay silent

The Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in a case involving Texas that could have provided an answer about whether a state abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law.

The decision is a significant victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and comes just three months after the court dismissed a similar case involving Idaho, a move that was criticized as a preelection punt that offered no clarity on the issue.

Dismissing the Idaho case did not resolve the underlying legal questions, so the decision not to hear arguments in the Texas case was unexpected.

  The Hill

I don't know. I expect them to do the worst possible thing these days.

The Texas case centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.

The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.

Texas sued the administration shortly after the guidance was issued, arguing the law was improperly applied, and the administration did not follow the appropriate rulemaking process.

A lower court ruled in favor of Texas, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed.

Oh, well, my guess is they would have upheld those decisions anyway.

This way, they don't have to have the negative headlines.

And in related news...

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.