Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 33 Filed 03/04/25 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
`
`
`
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
`ORDER
`
`Case No. 1:25-cv-00015-BLW
`
`
`
`ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM,
`LTD.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`RAÚL LABRADOR, Attorney
`General of the State of Idaho,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`The Court is scheduled to hear oral argument tomorrow, March 5, 2025 on
`
`two pending motions: Defendant Raul Labrador’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff
`
`St. Luke’s Healthy System, Ltd.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. This
`
`morning, however, St. Luke’s informed the Court that the United States intends to
`
`seek a stipulated dismissal, without prejudice, of its claims in United States v.
`
`Idaho, 22-cv-329-BLW. The United States reportedly wishes to file this stipulation
`
`for dismissal tomorrow—the same day as the scheduled hearing.
`
`St. Luke’s says any dismissal would “throw into question the status of the
`
`existent preliminary injunction in that case.” Motion, Dkt. 31, at 3. St. Luke’s
`
`further reports that if there is even a short period without an injunction, Idaho
`
`hospitals would be required to “train their staff about the change in legal
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 33 Filed 03/04/25 Page 2 of 5
`
`obligations, distracting them from providing medical care to their patients, and
`
`would once again require them to airlift patients out of state should a medical
`
`emergency arise so that those patients can consider the full spectrum of medically
`
`indicated care, including termination of pregnancy.” Id. St. Luke’s therefore asks
`
`the Court to issue a temporary restraining order “to maintain the status quo until
`
`such time as the Court issues its decision on the pending Motion for Preliminary
`
`Injunction.” Id.
`
`The Court will grant the request. In preparation for the hearing scheduled for
`
`March 5, 2025, the Court has reviewed the briefing relative to all pending motions
`
`in this case, as well as all evidence submitted in support of the injunction motion.
`
`Based on those submissions (as well as the submissions filed in connection with
`
`motion for a temporary restraining order), the Court’s assessment is that St. Luke’s
`
`has satisfied the standard for injunctive relief. That is, St. Luke’s has established
`
`that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims; (2) it is likely to suffer
`
`irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities
`
`tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, 555
`
`U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Injunctive relief is therefore appropriate.
`
`St. Luke’s also asks the Court to immediately grant its pending motion to
`
`consolidate this action with United States v. Idaho. The Court will hold off on
`
`resolving that motion, which may well become moot. In any event, however, if the
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 33 Filed 03/04/25 Page 3 of 5
`
`Court denies that motion, or if it becomes moot, the Court will allow St. Luke’s to
`
`docket any relevant filings from United States v. Idaho in this case.
`
`As for the bond requirement, notwithstanding its seemingly mandatory
`
`language, “Rule 65(c) invests the district court with discretion as to the amount of
`
`security required, if any.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir.
`
`2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the record before it, the Court
`
`waives the bond requirement as it finds that there is no realistic likelihood of harm
`
`to defendant from this restraining order.
`
`Finally, the Court will note that it would typically order that the TRO
`
`terminate at the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Given the last-
`
`minute developments, here, however, and the short turn-around time, the Court has
`
`determined that the most efficient course of action is to proceed with the hearing
`
`tomorrow and to leave the TRO in place for a short period of time after the
`
`hearing, which will allow the Court time to fully consider the arguments offered at
`
`the hearing. For that reason, this TRO will remain in effect after the March 5, 2025
`
`hearing date.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 31) is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 33 Filed 03/04/25 Page 4 of 5
`
`(2) Defendant shall appear at tomorrow’s scheduling hearing, on March 5,
`
`2025 at 3:00 p.m., to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction
`
`should not issue under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`The Court will also hear argument on that date (as scheduled) on
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`(3) Attorney General Raúl Labrador—and his officers, employees, and
`
`agents—are temporarily restrained from enforcing Idaho Code § 18-
`
`622(2)-(3) as applied to medical care required by the Emergency Medical
`
`Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Specifically,
`
`the Attorney General, including his officers, employees, and agents, are
`
`prohibited from initiating any criminal prosecution against, attempting to
`
`suspend or revoke the professional license of, or seeking to impose any
`
`other form of liability on, any medical provider or hospital based on their
`
`performance of conduct that is defined as an “abortion” under Idaho
`
`Code § 18-604(1), but that is necessary to avoid: (i) “placing the health
`
`of” a pregnant patient “in serious jeopardy”; (ii) a “serious impairment to
`
`bodily functions” of the pregnant patient; or (iii) a “serious dysfunction
`
`of any bodily organ or part” of the pregnant patient, pursuant to 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).
`
`(4) This temporary restraining order is effective immediately and shall
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 33 Filed 03/04/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`remain in full force and effect until the Court issues a written decision on
`
`St. Luke’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court anticipates
`
`issuing its written decision on the pending motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction within two weeks of the hearing date.
`
`
`
`DATED: March 4, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`B. Lynn Winmill
`U.S. District Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
`
`
`
`
`
