1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those…

Immigration Law

Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those who received conditional approval, 9th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to stop approving new refugees for U.S. admission during a legal challenge but said the government can’t keep out refugees who received conditional approval before the resettlement program was halted Jan. 20.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled on the government’s emergency motion in a March 25 order, report the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a March 25 press release.

In a Feb. 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, according to prior coverage by the New York Times. Whitehead said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the order was an “effective nullification of congressional will.”

On Monday evening, Whitehead issued a second preliminary injunction that orders the government to reinstate canceled cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies, according to another March 25 press release.

The legal challenge was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of Church World Service; HIAS, a Jewish resettlement agency; Lutheran Community Services Northwest; and nine people affected by the ban.

“The court affirmed that the government must continue processing and admitting eligible refugees whose lives were upended by President Trump’s refugee ban,” said Melissa Keaney, senior supervising attorney for litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, in a press release. “We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States and look forward to arguing this case in full.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal guidance on stabilizing emergency…

Health Law

Federal guidance on stabilizing emergency abortions can’t be enforced in Texas, 5th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 3, 2024, 10:20 am CST

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal government can’t enforce guidance in Texas that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency abortions to prevent serious jeopardy to a patient’s health in emergency situations.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans ruled for the state of Texas in its challenge to federal guidance interpreting the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as the EMTALA. The federal law applies to hospitals that receive Medicare funds.

The appeals court said the guidance “exceeds the statutory language” and “goes beyond EMTALA by mandating abortion.” The guidance alters a substantive legal standard, and it should have been subject to notice and comment, as required by the Medicare Act, the 5th Circuit said in a Jan. 2 opinion by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt.

The appeals court upheld an injunction barring enforcement of the guidance in Texas and against members of two organizations that joined Texas to challenge the law. The two groups are the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Courthouse News Service are among the publications with coverage. How Appealing linked to additional coverage.

The EMTALA requires necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. The law defines an emergency medical condition as a condition that, without medical treatment, could reasonably be expected to result in serious impairment to bodily functions, serious dysfunction to any bodily organ, or serious jeopardy to the health of the patient (or in the case of a pregnant person, the health of the person or their unborn child).

The guidance issued by the Biden administration states that a physician must perform an abortion if a pregnant patient has an emergency condition as defined by the EMTALA, and abortion is the necessary stabilizing treatment. The guidance states that state law is preempted if it categorically bans abortion or if the state law has a lifesaving exception that is more narrow than the EMTALA’s definition of an emergency medical condition.

But the EMTALA “does not govern the practice of medicine,” the appeals court said. “While EMTALA directs physicians to stabilize patients once an emergency medical condition has been diagnosed,” the 5th Circuit said, “the practice of medicine is to be governed by the states.”

The Texas abortion ban, known as the Human Life Protection Act, bans abortions unless the pregnancy “places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

The Texas law does not directly conflict with the EMTALA, the appeals court said, because it “does not stand in the way of providing stabilizing treatment for a pregnant woman or the unborn child.” The EMTALA requires hospitals “to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child.”

“EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations,” the appeals court said.

The case is Texas v. Becerra.

It follows a Texas Supreme Court ruling last month that held that a woman whose fetus has a genetic abnormality that is nearly always fatal can’t get an abortion under Texas law.