The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday temporarily blocked a federal judge’s ruling that would have expanded abortion access in Idaho, a decision that state officials said defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling.
The appellate court’s two-page order pauses an August decision by Senior District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee based in Idaho, who had held that the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses establish a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life or health.
Winmill later narrowed his ruling to apply only to the doctor who filed the lawsuit challenging Idaho’s pro-life law, but the state’s attorney general, Raúl Labrador, pressed forward with an emergency appeal, arguing the judge had overstepped his authority.
Legal Battle Over Idaho’s Abortion Law
Idaho law currently allows abortions in rare circumstances, including rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. However, according to the Family Research Council, Winmill’s ruling appeared to stretch that exception by adding a woman’s mental health as a qualifying condition, not just her physical life.
In his filing to the 9th Circuit, Labrador, a Republican, argued that Winmill’s injunctions “defy” the Dobbs decision and “prevent Idaho from enforcing its democratically enacted laws to protect unborn babies and their mothers.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling, the filing noted that Dobbs allows states to “regulat[e] or prohibit[]” abortion and overruled the Roe/Casey framework that had erected an absolute bar to restricting therapeutic abortions. The filing accused the district court of “arrogat[ing] the people’s power to itself,” urging the 9th Circuit to “heed Dobbs and stay the district court’s injunctions to allow the democratic process to play out.”
Idaho asked the appellate court to rule by Sept. 4 so it could seek further review if necessary.
9th Circuit’s Interim Order
The 9th Circuit’s order stated that Winmill’s decision is temporarily stayed “pending briefing and oral argument on Appellants’ Emergency Motions for a Stay Pending Appeal.” The court emphasized that the temporary pause “does not reflect the Court’s views on the Emergency Motions for a Stay Pending Appeal.”
The appellate court directed the appellee (the doctor who brought the lawsuit) to file a response by Sept. 8, and gave defenders of the law until Sept. 15 to file a reply brief. Oral arguments on the stay request will be held via video conference on Sept. 22, with each side allotted 30 minutes.
Labrador welcomed the ruling, stating, “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.” He added, “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.”
Context: Upcoming Ballot Initiative
Thursday’s ruling comes just weeks before Idaho voters head to the polls for the 2026 fall election, where they will decide on Proposition 1, a ballot initiative that would enshrine a “right” to “reproductive freedom and privacy” in state law, effectively overturning Idaho’s pro-life protections.
According to Ballotpedia, a “yes” vote would prevent the government from interfering with personal decisions involving childbirth care, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum care. The initiative’s backers have raised nearly $2.8 million, while the opposition campaign has collected $1.6 million, according to an Aug. 24 local media report.
The legal dispute in Idaho is part of a broader national struggle over abortion policy following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which returned the issue to the states. While some states have moved to protect abortion access, others, like Idaho, have enacted strict limits, leading to a patchwork of laws and ongoing court challenges.
The 9th Circuit’s decision to stay Winmill’s ruling is procedural, but it signals that the appellate court is willing to pause the lower court’s action while it fully reviews the case. Legal experts say the outcome of the stay request could influence how similar challenges are handled in other states.
The case now moves to oral arguments on Sept. 22, where both sides will present their positions on whether the district court’s injunctions should remain in effect during the appeal. Until then, Idaho can continue enforcing its existing abortion law.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/04/9th-circuit-shoots-down-rogue-judges-bid-to-defy-dobbs-decision/