The Supreme Court released its opinion in Moyle v. United States on Thursday morning, matching the result of the previously leaked draft. For the second consecutive year, a major Supreme Court abortion decision was leaked before its official release. This time, it seems the leak was due to a clerical error by someone managing the Court’s website.

On Wednesday, another significant abortion opinion was leaked, this time likely by accident. Bloomberg reported that the justices’ opinions in Moyle v. United States were “briefly posted on the court’s website” before being taken down. A Supreme Court spokesperson stated that “the court’s publications unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the court’s website,” and that the final decision would be “issued in due course.” Bloomberg provided a link to the leaked document.

Assuming the leaked document aligns with the Court’s final decision, a majority of justices have chosen not to rule on the Moyle case. The Court appears divided into four concurring and dissenting opinions, none of which have majority support. However, five justices seemingly decided that the case should not have been taken up through an expedited process that bypassed an intermediate appeals court.

In the leaked document, six justices voted to reinstate the lower court’s order, meaning Idaho patients needing medically necessary abortions won’t have to be transported to other states. However, if the final decision closely resembles the leaked draft, the main effect will likely be to delay the final resolution of this case until after the election.

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates that hospitals accepting Medicare funds provide “such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition” of anyone arriving at the hospital’s ER with an “emergency medical condition.”

This federal law conflicts with an Idaho statute banning all abortions except when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” When a federal law conflicts with a state law, the Constitution states that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” thus pre-empting the state law. EMTALA also includes a provision stating that state and local laws must yield “to the extent that the [state law] directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.”

However, in this Court, abortion-related cases are rarely simple. The Court’s three Democratic appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argue in two separate leaked opinions that EMTALA means what it says, though they appear divided on a procedural question.

Jackson, on the other hand, argues that the Court should immediately rule that EMTALA means what it says. She writes that doctors “observing the different legal thresholds for action under state and federal law” will be “surely cowed into not providing abortion” required by federal law, especially due to the risk of prosecution under state law.

At the Court’s far right, Alito, in a leaked opinion joined fully by Justice Clarence Thomas and partially by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argues for an abortion exception to the EMTALA statute. Alito points to several provisions of the law that use the phrase “unborn child,” suggesting that a statute using that phrase should not permit abortions.

Barrett’s opinion, as published in the Bloomberg leak, leaves most important questions in Moyle unresolved. She agrees with Kagan that the case should be sent back to the lower court, creating a majority for that outcome. She notes that Alito’s constitutional argument is “difficult and consequential” without taking a definitive stance.

Idaho’s lawyers claimed its state law permits abortions for some medical conditions “even if the threat to the woman’s life is not imminent.” Barrett argues that the “parties’ positions are still evolving,” so it makes sense for these positions to be refined in a lower court before the Supreme Court issues a final ruling.

However, there are often no court precedents clarifying when abortions are allowed, leaving doctors and their lawyers unsure when it’s legal to perform a medically necessary abortion. Kate Cox, a Texas woman, was denied an abortion despite her fetus being diagnosed with a rare and terminal genetic condition, forcing her to travel out of state for the procedure. Other women have been forced to carry to term fetuses that will die shortly after birth or have been denied abortion care even after experiencing a miscarriage that leaves them in medical distress. The Texas Supreme Court ruled against a group of 20 women claiming they had been denied medically necessary abortions.