Sam Alito Uncorks One Of The Dumbest Textualist Arguments In Supreme Court History

//

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A textualist would have little trouble dispensing with Moyle v. United States. Congress passed and President Reagan signed — yes, that Ronald Reagan who used to be the guiding light of the conservative movement — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, requiring any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is almost every hospital, to provide emergency medical treatment to anyone who shows up at the emergency room.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

The law’s purpose — if you’re one of those dirty hippies who care about legislative history — was to stop hospitals from refusing service to patients because the bean counters feared the patient wouldn’t be able to pay.

Sponsored Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance In this CLE-eligible webinar, we’ll explore the most common accounting pitfalls and how to avoid them for your firm. From Pilot and Above The Law  

Importantly, the law requires hospitals to perform abortions if terminating a pregnancy is the medically necessary treatment to protect a patient from death or severe physical harm and includes a provision clarifying that this law supersedes any contrary state law. But Idaho has a broad abortion ban and wants to criminally prosecute hospitals for following federal law.

The principled textualist would say that Idaho’s law must give way in the case of emergency conditions unless Idaho’s hospitals want to stop accepting Medicare. It’s not even a particularly close call.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

Sam Alito is not, however, a principled anything. His commitment to “textualism” amounts to playing out-of-context definitions like Magic: The Gathering cards. Like when he waved meanings ripped from Webster’s and Black’s Law Dictionary to explain how he didn’t violate bedrock government ethics rules only to overlook the actual words of the regulations and statute itself.

So it wasn’t much of a surprise when Alito attempted to hijack this morning’s oral argument to assert one of the dumbest textualist arguments in the Court’s illustrious — or dubious — history.

Sponsored Sponsored The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm ChatGPT ushers in the age of generative AI – even for law firms. From THOMSON REUTERS   Sponsored Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance In this CLE-eligible webinar, we’ll explore the most common accounting pitfalls and how to avoid them for your firm. From Pilot and Above The Law   Sponsored Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve The rise of remote work has dramatically reshaped the relationship between Lawyers and Law Firms, see how Scale LLP has taken the steps to get… From The Team at Scale LLP   Sponsored Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve The rise of remote work has dramatically reshaped the relationship between Lawyers and Law Firms, see how Scale LLP has taken the steps to get… From The Team at Scale LLP  

JUSTICE ALITO: We’ve now heard — let’s see — an hour and a half of argument on this case, and one potentially very important phrase in EMTALA has hardly been mentioned. Maybe it hasn’t even been mentioned at all. And that is EMTALA’s reference to the woman’s “unborn child.” Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions? Have you ever seen an abortion statute that uses the phrase “unborn child”?

….

— have you seen abortion statutes that use the phrase “unborn child”? Doesn’t that tell us something?

Sure YOUR statute legalizing abortion uses the term “unborn child,” but other statutes written decades later use that phrase to ban abortion so… QED!!!

While Alito patted himself on the back over his new expressio unius est expressio insanus standard, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar calmly explained that it did tell us something, but given the vagaries of linear time it doesn’t tell us anything Alito wants to hear:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

GENERAL PRELOGAR: It’s not an odd phrase when you look at what Congress was doing in 1989. There were well-publicized cases where women were experiencing conditions, their own health and life were not in danger, but the fetus was in grave distress and hospitals weren’t treating them.

The original text of the statute required emergency services for a mother in physical jeopardy. Some hospitals tried to skip out on performing emergency services where, say, a fetus was in severe distress, so Congress clarified that emergency rooms couldn’t get cute and tell a poor pregnant woman that they sure would love to untangle that umbilical cord, but since she doesn’t have insurance and isn’t in trouble herself they would prefer she take her problems outside.

Sponsored Sponsored Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now If 2023 introduced legal professionals to generative AI, then 2024 will be when law firms start adapting to utilize it. Things are moving fast, so… From LexisNexis   Sponsored Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace How to best leverage generative AI as an early adopter with ethical use. From LexisNexis  

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, let’s walk through the provisions of the statute that are relevant to this issue regarding the status and the potential interests of an unborn child. Under (b)(1), if a woman goes to a hospital with an “emergency medical condition” — that’s the phrase — the hospital must either stabilize the condition or, under some circumstances, transfer the — the woman to another facility.

So we have this phrase, “emergency medical condition,” in that provision. And then, under (e)(1), the term “emergency medical condition” is defined to include a condition that places the health of the woman’s unborn
child in serious jeopardy.

So, in that situation, the hospital must stabilize the threat to the unborn child. And it seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child, but performing an abortion
is antithetical to that duty.

“You say that emergency rooms have to have to set a simple broken arm, but gangrene would also be defined as an emergency medical condition… And it seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to treat arms, but performing an amputation is antithetical to that duty.” Prelogar was, under the circumstances, a model of patience in explaining that just because hospitals can’t dump patients on the street if a fetus is in medical danger does not, in fact, mean the hospital has an obligation to let pregnant women bleed out.

The law doesn’t even require the patient to accept any treatment! Just that hospitals have to offer treatment to poor people. Twisting that into a legal obligation to actually perform or deny services to a patient runs far, far afield of anything in the text of the statute.

But we’re not talking about principled textualists here.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

Abortion, Courts, Sam Alito, Supreme Court