BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed an appeal Thursday with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging a federal judge’s ruling that carved out exceptions to the state’s near-total abortion ban for cases involving maternal health and the risk of death from self-harm.

The appeal targets an 81-page decision written by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who ruled that Idaho’s abortion statutes were unconstitutional in part because they failed to allow physicians to terminate a pregnancy to protect a mother’s health, preserve her future fertility, or address serious mental health risks including self-harm.

The case was brought by Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist, who argued the state’s bans put physicians in an impossible position and exposed patients to serious harm. Seyb is represented by attorneys from the Lawyering Project and Legal Voice.

Labrador is asking the Ninth Circuit to block Winmill’s ruling entirely and restore Idaho’s ban as the legislature wrote it. He also argued that even if the court declines to do that, the ruling should apply only to Seyb personally, rather than functioning as a statewide exemption for all practicing physicians in Idaho.

“Dobbs made clear that abortion policy belongs to the people and their elected state representatives, not the judiciary,” Labrador said, as first reported by the Bonner County Daily Bee.

Under Idaho’s current criminal abortion ban, a physician who performs an abortion outside the permitted exceptions faces between two and five years in prison and the revocation of their medical license. The law does allow abortions to prevent the death of the mother, to treat ectopic or molar pregnancies, and in cases of rape or incest during the first trimester, provided a police report has been filed.

A separate civil-enforcement provision allows family members to sue abortion providers for a minimum of $20,000 per procedure if an abortion takes place after six weeks of pregnancy or after fetal heartbeat activity is detected.

Winmill’s ruling had drawn immediate reaction from both sides of the debate. Stephanie Toti, executive director of the Lawyering Project, told the Bonner County Daily Bee that “the Attorney General’s utter disregard for the health and welfare of pregnant Idaho residents is appalling.”

Labrador’s position is that the legislature, not federal judges, is the proper venue for resolving contested questions about Idaho’s abortion laws. His office argues that Winmill overstepped by using a single physician’s lawsuit to effectively rewrite the scope of Idaho’s statutes for the entire state.

Idaho voters will have their own say on the matter this November. A citizen-led initiative has qualified for the ballot that, if passed, would overturn Idaho’s abortion ban. The outcome of Labrador’s Ninth Circuit appeal and the ballot initiative could put the courts and the electorate on parallel tracks toward conflicting results, setting up continued legal uncertainty regardless of how either proceeds.

A related ruling earlier this year saw Judge Winmill block criminal enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban in select cases after finding the existing exceptions too narrow to protect physicians acting in good faith under urgent medical circumstances. That earlier order was the foundation on which Thursday’s appeal is built.

Idaho’s approach to abortion has become one of the most legally contested in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned authority over abortion law to the states. Labrador has been one of the most aggressive state attorneys general in defending that authority, arguing consistently that elected legislators bear responsibility for this policy area, not federal judges appointed for life.

The Ninth Circuit, which covers Idaho and several other western states, has frequently ruled against conservative state laws on social issues, making the outcome of the appeal uncertain. No timeline for a ruling has been set.