In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court has ruled to partially revive Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law, allowing the state to enforce key provisions aimed at penalizing those who transport or harbor minors seeking abortions out of state without parental consent. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over abortion rights, particularly in states with restrictive laws.
On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, determined that Idaho can proceed with enforcing its law, which criminalizes the act of “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” a minor to obtain an abortion and conceal it from their parents or guardians. The law, passed in 2023, imposes a prison sentence of two to five years for those found guilty of such actions.
However, the court also blocked a significant portion of the law, ruling that its provisions on “recruiting” minors to seek abortions may infringe on protected free speech under the First Amendment. This ruling underscores the complex balance between state authority, individual rights, and the broader issue of reproductive healthcare access.
Idaho’s law was introduced in response to the state’s near-total abortion ban, which provides limited exceptions only in cases of life-threatening conditions or rape and incest (if reported to the authorities). The law was challenged by several groups, including Lourdes Matsumoto, a lawyer and advocate for sexual violence victims, and organizations supporting abortion rights. They argued that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting speech and deterring individuals from counseling minors about abortion options.
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the majority, upheld the parts of the law targeting the transportation and harboring of minors but noted that recruiting could encompass a broad range of speech activities, such as offering emotional support, counseling, or educational outreach. Judge McKeown emphasized that speech protected by the First Amendment cannot be criminalized, even in the context of abortion.
In contrast, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador praised the ruling, framing it as a “tremendous victory” for the state’s efforts to protect life. He reiterated the state’s commitment to safeguarding Idaho’s abortion laws, signaling that enforcement will continue aggressively.
On the other side, Wendy Heipt, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed optimism, highlighting the court’s decision to protect the rights of Idahoans to freely discuss abortion options with minors. She described the ruling as a “significant victory” for advocates of reproductive rights in the state.
While the majority of the 9th Circuit panel agreed with the partial revival of the law, the ruling was not without controversy. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the lawsuit should have been dismissed due to procedural grounds—specifically, the plaintiffs’ decision to sue Idaho’s Attorney General, rather than local prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law.
As it stands, the battle over abortion access continues in Idaho, a state that shares borders with Washington, Oregon, and Montana, which have significantly more permissive abortion laws. The state’s abortion ban, enacted in the wake of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, remains one of the strictest in the nation. Since that ruling, more than 20 states, primarily led by Republican lawmakers, have moved to ban or restrict abortion access.
The decision is likely to fuel further legal challenges, with implications not only for Idaho but for other states grappling with similar issues following the reversal of federal abortion protections.
READ MORE: