We will hear argument this morning in case 23-726, Moyle v. United States and the consolidated case.

Mr. Turner.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

When Congress amended the Medicare Act in 1986, it put EMTALA on a century's old foundation of state law.

States have always been responsible for licensing doctors and

setting the scope of their professional practice. Indeed, Entala works precisely because

states regulate the practice of medicine. And nothing in EMTALA requires doctors to ignore the scope

of their license and offer medical treatments that violate state law. Three statutory provisions make this clear.

First, Section 1395, the Medicare Act's opening provision,

forbids the federal government from controlling the practice of medicine.

That's the role of state regulation.

Second, subdivision F in EMTALA codifies a statutory presumption

against preemption of state medical regulations. And third in EMTALA codifies a statutory presumption against preemption of state medical

regulations.

And third, EMTALA's stabilization provision is limited to available treatments, which

depends on the scope of the hospital staff's medical license.

Illegal treatments are not available treatments.

Add in this Court's own presumption against preemption of state regulations,

combine that with the need for clear and unambiguous spending clause conditions,

and the administration's reading becomes wholly untenable.

The administration's misreading also lacks any limiting principle.

If ER doctors can perform whatever treatment they determine is appropriate,

...