MIKE MOYLE, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives; CHUCK WINDER, President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate;

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this matter be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3.

The order published at 2023 WL 6308107 (9th Cir. Sep. 28, 2023) is vacated.

Case: 23-35440, 10/05/2023, ID: 12805470, DktEntry: 66, Page 1 of 2

Defendant, v. MIKE MOYLE, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives; CHUCK WINDER, President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate; THE SIXTY-SEVENTH IDAHO LEGISLATURE, Proposed Intevenor-Defendants, Movants-Appellants.

Case: 23-35440, 10/05/2023, ID: 12805470, DktEntry: 66, Page 2 of 2 Before: S.R.

THOMAS, Circuit Judge and En Banc Coordinator The United States’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration En Banc is granted.

The Clerk is directed to file the Reply in Support of the United States’ Emergency Motion at Docket Entry No. 65.

Case: 23-35440, 10/02/2023, ID: 12802802, DktEntry: 59, Page 9 of 18 USA V. MOYLE 9 The federal government nonetheless argues that because hospitals are required to stabilize patients’ medical conditions, they must perform ...

Case: 23-35440, 09/30/2023, ID: 12801967, DktEntry: 54, Page 1 of 2

Defendant, v. MIKE MOYLE, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives; CHUCK WINDER, President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate; THE SIXTY-SEVENTH IDAHO LEGISLATURE, Proposed Intevenor-Defendants, Movants-Appellants.

THOMAS, Circuit Judge and En Banc Coordinator The United States has filed an emergency motion for reconsideration en banc of the motions panel order granting a stay pending appeal.

Therefore, pursuant to General Order 6.1.b.2, the time periods for submitting briefs pertaining to the motion will be compressed.

The State of Idaho and Mike Moyle are directed to file a response on or before 10:00 a.m., Pacific time, Wednesday, October 4, 2023.

The federal government nonetheless argues that because hospitals are required to stabilize patients’ medical conditions, they must perform abortions because abortion could be a “form of stabilizing treatment.” But EMTALA does not ...

The federal government nonetheless argues that because hospitals are required to stabilize patients’ medical conditions, they must perform abortions because abortion could be a “form of stabilizing treatment.” But EMTALA does not ...

The federal government nonetheless argues that because hospitals are required to stabilize patients’ medical conditions, they must perform abortions because abortion could be a “form of stabilizing treatment.” But EMTALA does not ...

The federal government nonetheless argues that because hospitals are required to stabilize patients’ medical conditions, they must perform abortions because abortion could be a “form of stabilizing treatment.” But EMTALA does not ...

See id. at 2354 n.3 (“[N]o plaintiff in Sum- mers had standing because none had alleged specific plans to observe nature in one of the areas at issue . . . .”).

They present two independent arguments for why their claim as to the 2000 Approval is nonetheless timely.

FDA admits that none of the studies it relied on examined the effect of implementing all of those changes together.

See id. at 2354 n.3 (“[N]o plaintiff in Sum- mers had standing because none had alleged specific plans to observe nature in one of the areas at issue . . . .”).

They present two independent arguments for why their claim as to the 2000 Approval is nonetheless timely.

FDA admits that none of the studies it relied on examined the effect of implementing all of those changes together.

United States Court of Appeals

The court has granted the motion to withdraw as counsel.

P.S. We have removed Ms. Kaitlyn Golden from our docket as counsel for appellant.

We will not send further orders, correspondence, etc. regarding this appeal.

Supreme Court of the United States No.

UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for

the applicant, the response, and the reply filed thereto,

IT IS ORDERED that the stay issued on April 14, 2023, is hereby extended until 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, April 21, 2023.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

And none of this is to say that plaintiffs will not be able to develop evidence of unconstitutional conduct as the case progresses.

Id. But as the court acknowledged, none of the services John Doe 22 complained about have been discontinued, and defendants introduced evidence representing that “overseas employees ‘will retain access to Agency systems and to ...

None of this evidence establishes the irreparable harm required to issue an injunction.

ELON MUSK, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES DOGE SERVICE;

Plaintiff - Appellee Defendants - Appellants On the defendants’ motion for an administrative stay, the court orders that the district court’s preliminary injunction dated March 18, 2025, as clarified by its order dated March 20, 2025, be stayed and hereby is stayed until the close of business on Friday, March 28, 2025.

Directions: Counsel must make a docketing statement (civil/agency) filed entry in CM/ECF within 14 days of docketing of the appeal, or within the due date set by the clerk s docketing notice, whichever is later.

Parties proceeding pro se are not required to file a docketing statement.

Does appeal challenge constitutionality of federal or state statute in case to which federal or state government is not a party Yes Yes Yes No No No If yes, notice re: challenge to constitutionality of law must be filed.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1273 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/04/2025 Pg: 4 of 4 Appellant (Attach additional page if necessary.)

Name: Attorney: Address: E-mail: Phone: Appellant (continued) Name: Attorney: Address: E-mail: Phone: Name: Attorney: Address: E-mail: Phone: Name: Attorney: Address: E-mail: Phone: Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ___________________ Counsel for: _____________________________________________________________ Certificate of Service (required for parties served outside CM/ECF): I certify that this document was served on ____________ by [ ] personal delivery; [ ] mail; [ ] third-party commercial carrier; or [ ] email (with written consent) on the following persons at the addresses or email addresses shown: Signature: Date: