BOISE, Idaho — A federal appeals court ruled Friday to maintain a stay involving a 2025 lawsuit by an Idaho doctor on the state's ability to enforce parts of the state's Defense of Life Act.
Dr. Stacy Seyb of the St. Luke's Health System in Boise filed the lawsuit in October 2025, saying that despite the Supreme Court's repeal of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Constitution still protects abortions when medically necessary to protect the mother's health.
A federal district court judge ruled in favor of Seyb's lawsuit and prevented the state from enforcing the Defense of Life and Fetal Heartbeat Act against doctors using "good faith medical judgement that continuation of the pregnancy put the mother's help at risk.
The ruling prompted an appeal by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney in August.
As part of the proceedings in the case, on Aug. 25, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill narrowed the scope of the district court's ruling to that only Seyb could be prevented from being prosecuted.
Following the state and county appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District issued a temporary stay of the district court's ruling pending a hearing on Sept. 22.
In Friday's ruling, the appeals court issued a full stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal.
LINK | Read the ruling
"We think it unlikely that Dr. Seyb will be able to square the district court's perspective on the history and tradition concerning abortions with the Supreme Court's perspective in Dobbs," judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and Callahan wrote in their majority opinion.
Judge Marsha S. Berzon dissented, saying she "respectfully, but emphatically, dissent."
"In sum, Idaho has not made a strong showing either that Dobbs overruled the separate holdings in Roe and Casey regarding abortions preserving the life or health of the mother or that history and tradition does not support a right to such abortions," Berzon wrote in the dissent. "And Idaho's demonstration of irreparable harm from the district court's injunction pending resolution of this appeal is decidedly weak, particularly when balanced against the harm to Dr. Seyb's patients. "
—
