The Supreme Court reportedly declined to hear arguments in a Texas case that could have addressed the conflict between a state abortion ban and a federal emergency care law.
The decision is a substantial victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and was made just three months after the court dismissed a comparable case involving Idaho.
The earlier dismissal was criticized as a preelection postponement that failed to provide any clarity on the case.
The decision not to hear arguments in the Texas case was unexpected, as dismissing the Idaho case did not resolve the underlying legal questions.
The dismissal was met with criticism from abortion-rights activists, physicians, and Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Both contend that the court should have made a decision based on the merits, albeit for distinct reasons.
The Texas case is centered on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates that federally funded hospitals provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their financial status.
EMTALA was invoked by the Biden administration in response to the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Roe v. Wade.
The federal statute preempts state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition, according to the administration.
Texas filed a lawsuit against the administration shortly after the guidance was issued, contending that the law was applied incorrectly and that the administration failed to adhere to the proper rulemaking process.
[READ MORE: MSNBC Warns Democrats About Pennsylvania]
