Merrick Garland’s Idaho Abortion-Law Assault Flawed

The Dobbs decision may have settled the central question of whether the Constitution prohibits states from regulating or banning abortion. But legal defenders of abortion have not given up on attacking those laws with every weapon at hand, even when that requires stretching the law and bending the truth. Now, Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is suing Idaho on the theory that federal law preempts aspects of the state’s stringent abortion ban.

By filing in federal court in in Idaho, Garland may hope that the first appellate decision on this issue comes from a friendly panel of the Ninth Circuit. But the lawsuit, based on a novel and aggressive legal theory, distorts the truth about Idaho’s law. It is also a premature effort to promote Democratic talking points in the press about abortion bans applying to extreme cases of threats to maternal life or health.

The Dobbs decision may have settled the central question of whether the Constitution prohibits states from regulating or banning abortion. But legal defenders of abortion have not given up on attacking those laws with every weapon at hand, even when that requires stretching the law and bending the truth. Now, Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is suing Idaho on the theory that federal law preempts aspects of the state’s stringent abortion ban.

By filing in federal court in in Idaho, Garland may hope that the first appellate decision on this issue comes from a friendly panel of the Ninth Circuit. But the lawsuit, based on a novel and aggressive legal theory, distorts the truth about Idaho’s law. It is also a premature effort to promote Democratic talking points in the press about abortion bans applying to extreme cases of threats to maternal life or health.