Stacy Seyb v. Idaho Board Of Medicine Overturns Part Of SCOTUS Dobbs v. Jackson Abortion Ruling

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was the landmark 2022 decision of the United States Supreme Court which overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)  Dobbs specifically recognized the authority of state governments to regulate any aspect of abortion that federal law does not constitutionally preempt.

A semi-retired Clinton judge in Idaho, U.S. District Judge Barry Lynn Winmill, ruled on the 13th that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides a "narrow" right for a pregnant patient to obtain an abortion if the pregnancy could be a risk to their health, including their mental health. It’s the first ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022 to find that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to abortion:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article316882538.html

https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260813_ID-DENIALS_Ruling.pdf

Judge: Idaho can’t ban abortion when pregnancy threatens a woman’s health
By Nicole Blanchard - August 14, 2026

A federal judge for the District of Idaho has ruled that part of Idaho’s abortion restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution, according to a decision issued Thursday in a case brought by a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in his decision that the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses “establish a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health.”

Dr. Stacy Seyb, who practices at St. Luke’s Health System in Boise, filed the lawsuit against the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office and members of the Idaho Board of Medicine in 2024. Seyb claimed that Idaho’s strict abortion laws prevented him from providing medically necessary abortions to his patients, who are typically experiencing high-risk pregnancies.

A weeklong trial in Boise in June included testimony from Seyb and numerous other OB-GYNs and maternal-fetal medicine specialists who outlined the risks of denying abortion to pregnant patients. Attorneys with the Idaho Attorney General’s Office argued to establish the procedure as “gruesome and barbaric.”

Abortion has been illegal in Idaho in nearly all circumstances since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision in 2022 that essentially overturned Roe v. Wade, triggering bans in some states. Winmill wrote in his decision that Seyb’s case was not an attempt to relitigate that Supreme Court case or the constitutionality of elective abortion.

“It is about a pregnant woman’s ability to seek necessary obstetric care under the most difficult and tragic circumstances,” Winmill wrote. “It is about whether the state may pick and choose which life-threatening conditions can justify an abortion. It is about self-preservation and the limit of the state’s power to make a woman suffer for the sake of an unborn child.”

Winmill found that Idaho cannot criminalize abortions that preserve the health of pregnant women or prevent the death of pregnant women from self-harm. However, he said a third claim from Seyb — regarding pregnancies with severe fetal complications that will likely result in death soon after birth — is constitutional provided the fetal anomaly does not also pose a health risk for the mother.

In a news release from the Lawyering Project, a nonprofit that aims to expand abortion access, Seyb expressed relief at the ruling. Attorneys with the Lawyering Project represented Seyb during the case.

“I have been caring for Idaho patients with high-risk pregnancies for nearly 30 years,” Seyb said. “Today’s ruling allows me to once again offer patients with serious medical conditions the option of ending a pregnancy without leaving the state and to practice medicine without fear of criminal prosecution.”

In an emailed statement, Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador said Winmill “did exactly what the Supreme Court rejected in Dobbs: He legislated from the bench and manufactured a new constitutional right to abortion.

“The Supreme Court made clear that abortion policy belongs to the people and their elected representatives, not a single federal judge. Not only did he ignore Dobbs, he compounded that mistake by ignoring clear precedent stating that district judges lack authority to issue universal injunctions.”

The Attorney General’s Office said it will appeal Winmill’s decision “immediately” and is “confident this decision will be overturned.”

Idaho abortion bans unconstitional [sp.] on maternal health but not fetal anomalies

Wendy Heipt, senior litigation counsel for Legal Voice, which also represented Seyb, called the ruling “a major victory for safe pregnancy in Idaho.” Heipt said doctors will no longer need to delay or deny care to patients out of fear of prosecution.

Under Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, health care providers who perform illegal abortions face consequences that include loss of license and prison time. During trial, Seyb said he found it “very, very difficult to try to figure out what types of procedures, what situations would not put you into harm’s way” when deciding what circumstances were considered legal abortions.

The AG’s office argued that Seyb had a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, which says abortion is legal when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Winmill’s decision noted that two previous court cases have attempted to clarify the scope of the “death-of-the-mother exception”: a 2023 Planned Parenthood case that went to the Idaho Supreme Court, and a 2025 Ada County case brought by four Idaho women denied abortions when their health was at risk.

Winmill’s ruling was the most decisive interpretation to date.

“By allowing only life-saving abortions, Idaho’s ban infringes the right of pregnant women to obtain an abortion when necessary to preserve their health,” he wrote. “Idaho does not have a compelling interest in prohibiting obstetric care under these circumstances.”

It’s also the first legal decision to carve out mental health protections when it comes to abortion in Idaho.

Other part of abortion ruling

The judge’s ruling prevents Ada County prosecutors and the Idaho Attorney General’s Office from enforcing state abortion bans when pregnancy poses a risk for a woman’s physical health or when continuing a pregnancy could result in death from self-harm.

However, Winmill found that a challenge to Idaho abortion restrictions based on fetal anomalies did not violate the Constitution. Idaho Attorney General’s Office Division Chief for Civil Litigation and Constitutional Defense Jim Craig, who led the defense during the trial, questioned the ethics of terminating pregnancies when fetuses were diagnosed with conditions such as triploidy, a chromosomal abnormality that frequently results in miscarriage, stillbirth and death.

Winmill said the abortion ban in those instances is rightfully aimed at “preventing abortions based on mistaken fetal diagnoses and affirming the dignity of people with profound disabilities.”

“Some may find the law cruel,” Winmill later wrote in his opinion. “And the Court fully understands and appreciates that sentiment. Pregnant women faced with a devastating fetal diagnosis must either bear the challenges of pregnancy while waiting to watch their child die or flee the state to receive appropriate medical care.”

Winmill appeared to acknowledge the upcoming ballot initiative in the November general election which will allow Idaho voters to decide whether to reinstate widespread abortion access. The judge said that for Idahoans who oppose current laws, “the solution lies at the ballot box rather than the courthouse.”

Winmill also dismissed the Idaho Board of Medicine from the lawsuit, as he said it does not have the capacity to independently enforce the suspension or removal of medical licenses.