Idaho’s near-total abortion ban appears to have a serious conflict with a federal law governing emergency health care treatment, a federal judge said Monday.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the Republican-led state of Idaho earlier this month, saying the abortion ban set to take effect on Thursday violates a federal law requiring Medicare-funded hospitals to provide “stabilizing treatment” to patients experiencing medical emergencies. Idaho’s law criminalizes all abortions in “clinically diagnosable pregnancies,” but allows physicians to defend themselves in court by arguing the procedure was necessary to avert the death of the mother.

U.S. District Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the potential conflict is because Idaho’s law doesn’t appear to account for cases when a pregnant person might face serious medical consequences if the pregnancy is continued.

“That is more than just a hypothetical concern,” Winmill told attorneys on both sides during oral arguments in Boise’s federal courthouse. The judge said he would decide by the end of the day on Wednesday whether to temporarily block the strict abortion ban while the lawsuit proceeds.

States across the U.S. are watching the case closely and picking sides. So far, 36 states have signed on to friend-of-the-court briefs, with 20 states siding with the federal government and 16 defending Idaho’s abortion ban. Several major medical organizations have also filed briefs siding with the federal government, saying the ban forces physicians to choose whether they will break state or federal law.

During Monday’s arguments, Winmill questioned Idaho Deputy Attorney General Brian Church about whether ectopic pregnancies are included in the state’s definition of pregnancy, as written in the abortion ban law.

Ectopic pregnancies are considered life-threatening and occur in about one in every 50 pregnancies, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. They happen when a fertilized egg implants