The Supreme Court tossed out a lower court ruling that paved the way for an illegal immigrant teenager to have an abortion while in federal custody and will send the case back to the lower courts.

[Previous coverage: Illegal immigrant teenager could be forced between having abortion or staying in US]

In an unsigned per curiam opinion Monday with no noted dissents, the court remanded the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

With its decision, the court agreed with the request from the Trump administration, which asked the justices to weigh in in November.

[Also read: The 6 blockbuster cases to watch as the Supreme Court term ends]

Justice Department lawyers had asked the high court to vacate the appeals court’s ruling and send the case back with directions to “dismiss all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.”

Though the teenager at issue in the case, identified in court filings as Jane Doe, had the abortion, the Trump administration was worried other illegal immigrant pregnant teenagers would use the ruling from the federal appeals court in seeking an abortion.

The justices discussed the Trump administration’s request at more than a dozen different conferences, according to SCOTUSblog, only to relist it for discussion at future conferences. Their prolonged decision on how to proceed with the case prompted questions and confusion from court watchers, many of whom suspected one of the justices was writing a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

The issue in the case was not the right to an abortion, but instead whether the government had to facilitate access to an abortion for an unaccompanied teenager who came to the U.S. illegally and was apprehended by federal authorities. The minor, according to the court filing, declined to return to her home country and did not identify a sponsor in the U.S. into whose custody she could be released.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in the filing to the Supreme Court that the government “may adopt policies favoring life over abortion; it is not obligated to facilitate abortion; and the government acts permissibly when it does not place an undue burden in a woman’s path. Here, the government imposed no undue burden.”

Francisco also claimed American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing the minor misled the Justice Department about when Jane Doe would undergo the abortion, and accused the lawyers of making “what appear to be material misrepresentations and omissions” that were “designed to thwart this court’s review.”

“Although Ms. Doe’s representatives informed the government of the change in timing, they did not inform the government of the other two developments—which kept the government in the dark about when Ms. Doe was scheduled to have an abortion,” he wrote.

But the Supreme Court declined to take action on the alleged misconduct.

“The court takes allegations like those the government makes here seriously, for ethical rules are necessary to the maintenance of a culture of civility and mutual trust within the legal profession,” the court said in its opinion. “On the one hand, all attorneys must remain aware of the principle that zealous advocacy does not displace their obligations as officers of the court. Especially in fast-paced, emergency proceedings like those at issue here, it is critical that lawyers and courts alike be able to rely on one another’s representations. On the other hand, lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communication breakdowns constitute misconduct.”

The teenager in the case was 16 weeks pregnant when the federal appeals court issued its ruling in her favor.

[Opinion: Federal judge (finally) dismisses Jane Doe case, ensuring illegal immigrant who didn't want an abortion can ditch her pro-abortion attorneys]

