The Justice Department moved Wednesday to cancel a settlement with Minneapolis that called for an overhaul of its police department following the murder of George Floyd, as well as a similar agreement with Louisville, Kentucky, saying it doesn’t want to pursue the cases.

Following a scathing report by the Justice Department in 2023, Minneapolis in January approved a consent decree with the federal government in the final days of the Biden administration to overhaul its training and use-of-force policies under court supervision.

The agreement required approval from a federal court in Minnesota. But the Trump administration was granted a delay soon after taking office while it considered its options, and on Wednesday told the court it does not intend to proceed. It planned to file a similar motion in federal court in Kentucky.

“After an extensive review by current Department of Justice and Civil Rights Division leadership, the United States no longer believes that the proposed consent decree would be in the public interest,” said the Minnesota motion, signed by Andrew Darlington, acting chief of the special litigation section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The United States will no longer prosecute this matter.”

The Justice Department announced its decision just before the five-year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. Then-officer Derek Chauvin used his knee on May 25, 2020, to pin the Black man to the pavement for 9 1/2 minutes in a case that sparked protests around the world and a national reckoning with racism and police brutality.

However, no immediate changes are expected to affect the Minneapolis Police Department, which is operating under a similar consent decree with the Minnesota Human Rights Department.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara reiterated at a news conference Tuesday that his department would abide by the terms of the federal agreement as it was signed, regardless of what the Trump administration decided.

The city in 2023 reached a settlement agreement with the state Human Rights Department to remake policing, under court supervision, after the agency issued a blistering report in 2022 that found that police had long engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States.

In a bitterly divided decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members “reasonable time” to go to court.

But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.

The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary.

In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court “now rewards the government for its behavior.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would be harder for people to challenge deportations individually, wherever they are being held, and noted that the administration has also said in another case before the court that it’s unable to return people who have been deported to the El Salvador prison by mistake.

“We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.

The justices acted on the administration’s emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act.

“For all the rhetoric of the dissents,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion, the high court order confirms “that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

The case has become a flashpoint amid escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts. It’s the second time in less than a week that a majority of conservative justices has handed Trump at least a partial victory in an emergency appeal after lower courts had blocked parts of his agenda.

Several other cases are pending, including over Trump’s plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.

Trump praised the court for its action Monday.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan noncitizens who were being held in Texas, hours after the proclamation was made public and as immigration authorities were shepherding hundreds of migrants to waiting airplanes.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said the “critical point” of the high court’s ruling was that people must be allowed due process to challenge their removal. “That is an important victory,” he said.

Boasberg imposed a temporary halt on deportations and also ordered planeloads of Venezuelan immigrants to return to the U.S. That did not happen. The judge held a hearing last week over whether the government defied his order to turn the planes around. The administration has invoked a “ state secrets privilege ” and refused to give Boasberg any additional information about the deportations.

Trump and his allies have called for impeaching Boasberg. In a rare statement, Chief Justice John Roberts said “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

A Texas lawmaker who helped pioneer the state’s restrictive abortion laws introduced a bill on Friday to clarify medical exceptions allowed under the law, representing a pivot from Republican legislators who have defended the state’s abortion ban in the face of lawsuits and medical scrutiny.

The bill, introduced by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, still requires that patients have a medical emergency for a physician to perform an abortion but strikes language that it be a life-threatening condition. The bill would also require doctors and lawyers to receive training about the law.

“We’ve learned in a number of cases where the physician was willing to treat the mom, but the lawyers for the hospital would advise against it,” Hughes said. “So one of the most important things we want to do is make sure that doctors and the hospital lawyers are trained on what the law is.”

Hughes’ proposed legislation follows similar efforts by Kentucky lawmakers who added medical exceptions to their state’s near-total abortion ban on Thursday.

Texas law currently prohibits abortions except when a pregnant patient has a life-threatening condition. Doctors who are convicted of providing an illegal abortion can face up to 99 years in prison, a $100,000 fine and lose their medical license.

Texas’ abortion laws are among the strictest in the nation and have survived multiple legal challenges since the overturning of Roe v. Wade from opponents who say the law is unclear about when medical exceptions are allowed.

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the president of the Senate, has made the bill one of his legislative priorities, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s office said he’s open to supporting the legislation.

“Since the Dobbs decision, there have been 135 medically necessary abortions to save mothers’ lives in Texas with no repercussions for those physicians,” Abbott spokesperson Andrew Mahaleris said in a statement. “Governor Abbott looks forward to seeing any clarifying language in any proposed legislation from the legislature.”

For years, abortion rights advocates have criticized Texas’ abortion laws, which do not allow exceptions for cases of incest or rape, as too restrictive.

“No amount of attempted clarification from Texas lawmakers would suffice because abortion bans are dangerous,” said Ashley Gray, senior policy adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “As long as you’re criminalizing doctors for providing care, patients will suffer.”

In 2024, the Texas Supreme Court said the state’s abortion laws were not too vague, ruling against a group of women who had serious pregnancy complications and were denied abortions. The Texas Medical Board has refused to list specific exceptions for doctors under the law.

Dallas mother Kate Cox was at the center of a separate lawsuit brought in 2023 for a similar issue after a court denied her permission to obtain an abortion after her fetus developed a fatal condition.

A group of more than 100 obstetricians and gynecologists across the state sent a letter in November to state officials urging them to reform the law after an investigation by ProPublica found three women had died after doctors had delayed treating their miscarriages.

As President Donald Trump moves to overhaul the federal government with astonishing speed, he has wreaked havoc on one agency long known for its nonpartisanship and revered for its mission: the National Archives and Records Administration.

The independent agency and its trove of historic records have been the subject of Hollywood films and the foundation of research and policy. It also holds responsibilities in processes that are crucial for democracy, from amending the Constitution to electing a president. As the nation’s recordkeeper, the Archives tells the story of America — its founding, breakdowns, mistakes and triumphs.

Former employees of the agency now worry it’s becoming politicized.

Earlier this month, the Republican president abruptly fired the head archivist. Since then, several senior staffers at the Archives have quit or retired. An unknown number of staffers at the agency also have accepted government-offered deferred resignations, often known as buyouts, or been fired because of their probationary status.

Everything that happens in the government, domestically and internationally, generates records. The National Archives is their final landing spot.

Among those are the nation’s precious founding documents, including the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The collection also includes military personnel files that allow veterans to get benefits, employment and tax records, maps, drawings, photographs, electronic records and more.

The archivist of the United States is the steward of those billions of records, which belong to the American people, said James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association.

Besides its museum in Washington, the agency manages field offices and presidential libraries around the country. It also authenticates and certifies new constitutional amendments and houses the Office of the Federal Register, which, among other things, verifies electoral certificates during presidential elections.

The president didn’t give a public reason for firing archivist Colleen Shogan, but he has long held a grudge against the agency for notifying the Justice Department of his alleged mishandling of classified documents after he left office following his first term.

That 2022 referral led to an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and a federal indictment against him. A federal judge dismissed the case last year.

Shogan wasn’t working for the agency at the time. Still, Trump fired her abruptly on Feb. 7 without giving her a reason, she said in a social media post.

The Society of American Archivists said its leadership was alarmed by the news and said the firing with no stated cause “does harm to our nation and its people.”

The president is allowed to dismiss the head of the agency, but none has done so quite as brazenly as Trump. The closest historical precedent was in 2004, when archivist John Carlin resigned and revealed in a letter to a U.S. senator that he had been asked to do so by President George W. Bush’s Republican White House.

The president is required by law to notify Congress of the reasons for the firing, but he isn’t bound to any timeline. House and Senate leaders didn’t respond to The Associated Press’ inquiries about whether Trump had shared that information. The Senate committee that has appropriations jurisdiction over the Archives was not told of Shogan’s firing beforehand, nor has it been told of any replacement, a congressional staff member said.

North Carolina’s elections board dismissed formal protests Wednesday by several Republican candidates who trailed narrowly in their races last month and had questioned well over 60,000 ballots cast this fall.

The State Board of Elections’ decisions sided with the Democratic candidates, including those for a state Supreme Court seat and a key General Assembly seat. These matters are now expected to be resolved in the courts.

The board voted in favor of denying the protests of GOP Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin, who after a recent statewide machine recount trailed Associate Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes from over 5.5 million ballots cast. No additional recounts had been ordered after a partial hand recount completed Tuesday failed to suggest that Griffin could catch up to Riggs.

Riggs is one of only two Democrats on the seven-member court, which has been a partisan flash point in the state over the past two years in court battles involving redistricting, photo voter identification and other voting rights.

The board on Wednesday considered protests filed by Griffin, a current Court of Appeals judge, and three candidates for the General Assembly covering three categories of voting.

Those categories included votes cast by people with voter registration records lacking driver’s licenses or containing partial Social Security numbers; overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were deemed North Carolina residents; and military or overseas voters who did not provide copies of photo identification with their ballots.

The board is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. In three of four dismissal motions Wednesday, the votes were 3-2 along party lines. The vote on the other motion was unanimous.

Riggs’ campaign has said that she is the winner and that Griffin should concede immediately. Speaking after the hearing, Riggs mentioned that her parents were among the 60,000-plus voters whose votes were being challenged, and “I can personally attest they are in fact lawful votes.”

Griffin didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the decisions. State Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons said in a news release that the “board’s continued efforts to engineer political outcomes for Democrats is shameful” and suggested appeals could be ahead.

Another candidate protester is GOP Rep. Frank Sossamon, who trailed Democratic challenger Bryan Cohn. A Cohn victory would mean Republicans fall one seat short of retaining their current veto-proof majority for the next two-year General Assembly starting next month.

The board could have ultimately ordered corrected ballot tallies, more recounts or new elections if it determined the evidence showed election law violations or irregularities called into question the results of the protested elections.

Scores of protests filed by Griffin and the legislative candidates are still being considered by county boards.

During Wednesday’s hearing, attorneys for Riggs and other Democrats urged the state board to throw out the protests. They consider the protests an illegal attempt to change the election rules after votes have been cast and counted and out of line with protest rules.

“The voters that protesters are challenging here today unquestionably are eligible voters,” said Will Robertson, an attorney representing three Democratic legislative candidates and the state Democratic Party. “These protests are not only facially invalid but they’re an affront to democracy and to the rule of law in North Carolina.”

Citing the state constitution, attorneys for Griffin argued that elections boards cannot count the ballots of people who have never lived in North Carolina. And they said the state board erred by generating voter registration forms that did not make clear that state law requires an applicant to provide one of the identifying numbers.

“We filed these protests because we believe the winners of these elections should be determined by eligible voters and only by eligible voters,” Craig Schauer, an attorney for Griffin and GOP legislative candidates, told the board.

In addition to the substance of the protests, Democratic board members also threw out the protests because they determined that voters did not receive appropriate legal notice that their votes were being challenged.

Griffin sent postcards to a voter or the “current resident” stating that “your vote may be affected” by a protest, according to legal briefs and evidence. It included a QR code that mobile phone users could visit to obtain information. Democrats said people may have thrown the postcard away or considered it a scam.

The state board’s decisions came days after the state Democratic Party sued in federal court to block the State Board of Elections from ruling in any way to throw out the disputed ballots.

Griffin led Riggs by about 10,000 votes on election night, but that lead dwindled and flipped to Riggs as qualifying provisional and absentee ballots were added to the totals.

Louisiana’s plan to make all of the state’s public school classrooms post the Ten Commandments next year remains on hold under an order Wednesday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state request to temporarily stay an earlier order by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge while litigation continues. Arguments before a 5th Circuit panel are scheduled for Jan. 23, meaning the judge’s order stays in effect well past the law’s Jan. 1 deadline to post the commandments.

The state contends that deGravelles’ order affects only the five school districts that are defendants in a legal challenge. But it’s unclear whether or how the law would be enforced in the state’s 67 other districts while the appeal progresses. Also, deGravelles ordered that all schools in every district be notified of his decision that the law is unconstitutional, a requirement maintained by Wednesday’s ruling.

“We’re pleased that the Court of Appeals left the district court’s injunction fully intact,” said Sam Grover, an attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “As the district court ruled, this law is unconstitutional on its face.”

State Attorney General Liz Murrill said in an emailed statement that her office would “continue to defend this clearly constitutional law.”

DeGravelles ruled that the law, passed by the GOP-dominated Legislature, was “overtly religious” and “unconstitutional on its face.” He also said it amounted to unconstitutional religious government coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the bill into law in June, prompting a group of Louisiana public school parents of different faiths to sue. They argue the law violates the First Amendment’s provisions forbidding the government from establishing a religion or blocking the free exercise of it. They also say the proposed poster-sized display would isolate students, especially those who are not Christian. The parents further argue that the version of the Ten Commandments specified in the law is favored by many protestants and doesn’t match any version found in Jewish tradition.

Proponents say the Ten Commandments are not solely religious and have a historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law. Murrill, the Republican attorney general, has said she disagreed with deGravelles’ ruling and that the law is constitutional under Supreme Court precedents.

The state’s loss in court on Wednesday came after a partial victory last week, when a 5th Circuit panel temporarily blocked instructions in DeGravelles’ order that state education officials notify schools in all districts of his finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Republicans and Democrats awaited the outcome of vote-counting for crucial U.S. House districts in California on Wednesday, as the GOP clinched majority control of the chamber next year with a race call in neighboring Arizona.

In a rematch from 2022, Rep. Ken Calvert — the longest-serving Republican in the state’s congressional delegation — defeated rival Democrat Will Rollins in the 41st District, which lies east of Los Angeles and was a top target for national Democrats.

In Southern California’s Orange County, Democrat Dave Min defeated Republican Scott Baugh in a closely divided swing district, ending Baugh’s bid to seize the seat being vacated by Democratic Rep. Katie Porter in what was once a conservative stronghold.

The 47th District, southeast of Los Angeles, was a top target for national Republicans looking to protect and possibly expand the their narrow majority.

Calvert, who was backed by President-elect Donald Trump, claimed his 17th term in a district narrowly carried by Trump in 2020.

“This is a hard-fought victory that shows voters want someone who will put results above partisan politics,” Calvert said in a post on the social platform X.

Min, also posting on X, said that in Congress he will “fight to protect our democracy, safeguard our freedoms and expand economic opportunity.”

Baugh said on the same platform that “despite running a strong campaign … that effort is going to come up a little short.”

On Tuesday, Republican Rep. David Valadao’s victory in California’s 22nd District moved Republicans within two wins of retaining the House gavel, with the tally 216-207 in favor of the GOP, as counting continued in a sliver of races across the country.

With Calvert’s win, the Republican tally reached 217. That became 218 on Wednesday night, securing a majority margin, as Rep. Juan Ciscomani won reelection to a seat representing southeastern Arizona. Some squeaker races remained in play in California.

In the 45th District, anchored in Orange County, Republican Rep. Michelle Steel’s lead over Democrat Derek Tran was whittled down to a few hundred votes as counting continued.

California is known as a liberal protectorate — Democrats hold every statewide office, dominate the Legislature and congressional delegation and outnumber registered Republicans by a staggering 2-1 ratio. Still, Republicans retain pockets of political clout in the Southern California suburbs and vast rural stretches, including the Central Valley farm belt.

Orange County was once considered conservative holy ground, where white, suburban homeowners delivered winning margins for Republicans year after year. It was a foundational block in the Reagan revolution. But the county has become more demographically diverse and Democratic over time, like much of the state.

The 47th District, which includes Huntington Beach and other famous surf breaks, has been occupied by Porter, a progressive favorite who in 2022 narrowly defeated Baugh, a former Republican legislator. Porter, known for grilling CEOs during Capitol Hill hearings, stepped aside to run for U.S. Senate, but lost in the primary.

Given the stakes in the closely divided district, the contest was especially rancorous. Min ads called Baugh a “MAGA extremist” who would endanger abortion rights. Baugh said Min’s “extreme liberal views” were out of step with the district.

A conservative federal court said Mississippi cannot count mail-in ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day, however Friday’s decision was not expected to affect the Nov. 5 election.

Although the appellate judges firmly asserted that counting late ballots violates federal law, even if those ballots are postmarked by Election Day, the judges stopped short of an order immediately blocking Mississippi from continuing the practice. Their ruling noted federal court precedents have discouraged court actions that change established procedures shortly before an election.

The outcome may be negligible in most elections in heavily Republican Mississippi, but the case could affect voting in swing states if the Supreme Court ultimately issues a ruling.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a July decision by U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr., who had dismissed challenges to Mississippi’s election law by the Republican National Committee, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi and others. The appeals court order sent the case back to Guirola for further action.
The appeals court said its ruling Friday would not be returned to a lower court until seven days after the deadline for appealing their decision has passed — which is usually at least 14 days. That would put the effect of the ruling well past Nov. 5.

UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on his election law blog that the appeals court ruling was a “bonkers opinion” and noted that “every other court to face these cases has rejected this argument.”

Republicans filed more than 100 lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley praised the ruling for upholding “commonsense ballot safeguards” and said voters deserve “a transparent election which ends on November 5th.”

A spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Mississippi is one of several states with laws allowing mailed ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The list includes swing states such as Nevada and states such as Colorado, Oregon and Utah that rely heavily on mail voting.

In July, a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit in Nevada. The Republican National Committee is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to revive that case.

A federal appeals court has rejected Donald Trump’s request to halt postconviction proceedings in his hush money criminal case, leaving a key ruling and the former president’s sentencing on track for after the November election.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan cited the postponement last week of Trump’s sentencing from Sept. 18 to Nov. 26 in denying his motion for an emergency stay.

The sentencing delay, which Trump had sought, removed the urgency required for the appeals court to consider pausing proceedings.

Messages seeking comment were left for Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case.

Trump appealed to the 2nd Circuit after a federal judge last week thwarted the Republican nominee’s request to have the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the state court where it was tried.

Trump’s lawyers said they wanted the case moved to federal court so they could then seek to have the verdict and case dismissed on immunity grounds.

The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, announced the delay last Friday and said he now plans to rule Nov. 12 on Trump’s request to overturn the verdict and toss out the case because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s July presidential immunity ruling.

Merchan explained that he was postponing the sentencing to avoid any appearance that the proceeding “has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.”

Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies Daniels’ claim that she and Trump had a sexual encounter a decade earlier and says he did nothing wrong.

Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years behind bars. Other potential sentences include probation, a fine or a conditional discharge, which would require Trump to stay out of trouble to avoid additional punishment.

Russian prosecutors on Thursday asked for a 15-year sentence in the treason trial of a Russian-American woman, who has pleaded guilty, Russian news agencies reported.

Ksenia Khavana, whom Russian authorities identify by her maiden name of Karelina, was arrested in Yekaterinburg in February, accused of collecting money for Ukraine’s military.

She pleaded guilty in the closed trial on Wednesday, news reports said, and the Interfax news agency on Thursday quoted her lawyer Mikhail Mushalov as saying prosecutors called for 15 years in prison. The sentencing is expected on Aug. 15, Mushalov was quoted as saying.

Khavana reportedly obtained U.S. citizenship after marrying an American and moving to Los Angeles. She had returned to Russia to visit her family.

The rights group The First Department said the charges stem from a $51 donation to a U.S. charity that helps Ukraine. Russia’s Federal Security Service claims she “proactively collected money in the interests of one of the Ukrainian organizations, which was subsequently used to purchase tactical medical supplies, equipment, weapons, and ammunition for the Ukrainian armed forces.”

Since sending troops into Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has sharply cracked down on dissent and has passed laws that criminalize criticism of the operation in Ukraine and remarks considered to discredit the Russian military. Concern has risen since then that Russia could be targeting U.S. nationals for arrest.

In the largest Russia-West prisoner exchange since the end of the Cold War, Russia last week released Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and American corporate security executive Paul Whelan, both of whom were imprisoned on espionage convictions, and U.S.-Russian dual national Alsu Kurmasheva, a Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe journalist sentenced to 6 1/2 years for spreading “false information” about the Russian military.

Russia also released several prominent opposition figures who were imprisoned for criticizing the Ukraine military operation.

The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions, for now, in a procedural ruling that left key questions unanswered and could mean the issue ends up before the conservative-majority court again soon.

The ruling came a day after an opinion was briefly posted on the court’s website accidentally and quickly taken down, but not before it was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The final opinion appears largely similar to the draft released early. The 6-3 vote reverses the court’s earlier order that had allowed an Idaho abortion ban to go into effect, even in medical emergencies.

The limited ruling sidesteps a ruling that could have taken political center stage in an election year where abortion has been an animating issue. A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 7 in 10 U.S. adults favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies.

The Biden administration sued Idaho to allow abortions in emergency cases where a woman’s health was at serious risk.

Dismissing the case now makes sense because the contours of the issue have changed in the last several months, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurrence joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” Barrett wrote, pointing to revisions Idaho made to its abortion ban and the Biden administration making clear that its arguments were aimed at rare cases.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should decide now, arguing the earlier order meant Idaho doctors were forced to watch as patients suffered or airlifted out of state for care.

“We had ample time to consider this issue,” she said, underscoring her views by reading a summary of her opinion aloud in the courtroom. “Not doing anything is problematic for several reasons.”

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, also disagreed with the decision to dismiss the case now, though he differed on why. Joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, he suggested the court should side with Idaho. Federal health care law “conclusively shows that it does not require hospitals to perform abortions,” he wrote.

The majority decision to dismiss the case means the issues at the heart of it remain unresolved and the same justices who voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion could soon be again considering when doctors can provide abortion in medical emergencies.

The premature release marked the second time in two years that an abortion ruling went out early, though in slightly different circumstances. The court’s seismic ruling ending the constitutional right to abortion was leaked to Politico.

The ruling came in a case filed against Idaho by the Biden administration, which argued that doctors must be allowed to provide emergency abortions under a federal law when a pregnant woman faces serious health risks.

Democratic President Joe Biden said the court’s order ensures that Idaho women can get the care they need while the case continues to play out.

“Doctors should be able to practice medicine. Patients should be able to get the care they need,” he said.

Idaho had pushed back, arguing that its law does provide an exception to save the life of a pregnant patient and federal law doesn’t require expanded exceptions.

Doctors in Idaho said that the law wasn’t clear on when they could provide abortions in emergencies, forcing them to airlift pregnant women to other states for emergency care on several occasions since the high court had allowed the ban to go into effect in January.

The justices found that the court should not have gotten involved in the case so quickly, and majority reinstated a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health.