The Supreme Court's decision not to take the Texas case came months after it ruled it got involved too early in a similar dispute in Idaho over a federal emergency care law.

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Biden administration's attempt to require emergency abortions in Texas when needed to prevent serious injury to the mother.

Over the administration's objections, the court without comment let stand a lower court’s ruling that abortions that violate Texas's strict abortion ban aren't required under federal law.

The high court’s rejection of the appeal comes months after it allowed emergency abortions in Idaho while the administration’s challenge to the state’s abortion restrictions is litigated.

Unlike in Idaho, where the Biden administration challenged the state's ban, Texas sued the administration for telling hospitals they had to offer abortions if necessary to prevent serious injury to a woman's health.

The issue will continue to be litigated in the lower courts, although the Justice Department’s stance could change if former President Donald Trump wins the November election.

Lower court said EMTALA doesn't mandate abortion

After the Supreme Court in 2022 eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, the Biden administration told hospitals it would be enforcing a federal law requiring emergency rooms provide stabilizing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.

That includes abortions if the women’s health, not just her life, is at risk, according to the administration.

After Texas sued, a panel of judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) “does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion.”

The appeals court also said the administration had not followed the proper rule-making process when issuing its enforcement announcement.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said the Texas ruling should be revisited by the lower courts in light of recent developments.

Those include the Supreme Court’s June decision to allow emergency abortions in Idaho while the administration’s challenge to Idaho’s abortion restrictions is litigated.

The administration also argued that Texas now says there’s no conflict with the federal law because abortions are allowed if a mother risks death or substantial harm to a major bodily function.

Texas wanted the Supreme Court to reject the administration’s appeal, leaving in place the lower court’s decision.

Doctors have said they can’t treat women who might lose organs or their reproductive ability, have uncontrollable bleeding or suffer other serious health consequences without an abortion − unless her life is clearly at risk.

Women in Texas have filed federal complaints that they were denied abortions for ectopic pregnancies, saying they nearly died and suffered losses of fallopian tubes after they were repeatedly turned away for treatment.

In May, the Texas Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the state's abortion ban by women who had serious pregnancy complications. That decision came months after the court ruled that Kate Cox, a Dallas area mother carrying a fetus with a fatal condition, did not qualify for an abortion under state laws based on her doctor's "good faith belief" that she needs the procedure.

A Georgia woman died in 2022 after waiting 20 hours for a hospital to treat her complications from an abortion pill, according to ProPublica.