Judge Denies Idaho Attorney General's Attempt to Dismiss Abortion Lawsuit

Federal judge clears the way for legal challenge to Idaho's near-total abortion ban to go to trial

Published on Feb. 13, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge has denied Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state's near-total abortion ban, clearing the way for the legal challenge to proceed to trial. The lawsuit was filed by Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal fetal medicine specialist, seeking court protections for medically necessary abortions.

Why it matters

This ruling is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over abortion rights in Idaho, where the state has enacted a near-total ban on the procedure. The judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to move forward sets the stage for a trial that could have major implications for the future of abortion access in the state.

The details

In October, Labrador's office argued that Dr. Seyb admitted to not understanding how the state's abortion law works and asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed before trial. However, the federal judge denied the state's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Seyb 'has established a genuine dispute of material fact.' The judge also noted that the 'contours of the life-of-the mother exception remain ambiguous,' and that the case will require the court to 'weigh the evidence of our nation's history, traditions, and practices' regarding the constitutional limits on what the state can require of pregnant women.

  • In October 2026, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed before trial.
  • On Monday, February 13, 2026, the federal judge denied Labrador's office's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

The players

Raúl Labrador

The Idaho Attorney General who attempted to have the lawsuit challenging the state's near-total abortion ban dismissed.

Dr. Stacy Seyb

A maternal fetal medicine specialist who filed the lawsuit seeking court protections for medically necessary abortions in Idaho.

B. Lynn Winmill

The federal judge who denied the Idaho Attorney General's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

Jan Bennetts

The Ada County Prosecuting Attorney named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Idahoans United for Women and Families

The group leading a ballot initiative to repeal Idaho's strict abortion ban and add protections for reproductive rights.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care. Dr. Seyb did not educate himself on what Idaho law permits, which is required of every doctor in Idaho. His patients suffered from his lack of understanding, not because of our laws.”

— Raúl Labrador, Idaho Attorney General (dailyfly.com)

“Even to this Court, the contours of the life-of-the mother exception remain ambiguous. Idaho could not make a mother undergo a bone marrow transplant to save her child. Can it require a pregnant woman to give up her ovaries or her kidneys in the hopes of saving a fetus? Answering that question will require the Court to weigh the evidence of our nation's history, traditions, and practices. For that reason, this case must go to trial.”

— B. Lynn Winmill, Federal Judge (dailyfly.com)

“We look forward to trial, where we will present expert medical and historical evidence that Idaho's Defense of Life Act fully complies with all constitutional requirements, protects unborn life, and ensures doctors can make good faith medical decisions to keep women safe.”

— Damon Sidur, Spokesperson, Idaho Attorney General's Office (dailyfly.com)

What’s next

The judge's ruling clears the way for the lawsuit challenging Idaho's near-total abortion ban to go to trial, where the state will have the opportunity to present its case and defend the law.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles over abortion rights in conservative states like Idaho, where lawmakers have enacted strict bans on the procedure. The judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed to trial suggests the courts may be willing to scrutinize the constitutionality of such laws, potentially setting the stage for a significant ruling on the future of abortion access in the state.