WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk, according to a copy of the opinion briefly posted on the court’s website Wednesday and obtained by Bloomberg News.

The document suggests the court will find that it should not have gotten involved in the case over Idaho’s strict abortion ban so quickly.

By a 6-3 vote it would reinstate a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that its publications unit inadvertently posted a document Wednesday.

An opinion in the Idaho case would be issued “in due course,” court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are listed as dissenting from the decision.

In other cases:

■ The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that officials in the Democratic administration leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision should not affect typical social media users or their posts.

■ The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor on Wednesday. The high court’s 6-3 opinion along ideological lines found the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, not rewards handed out after. “Some gratuities can be problematic.

Others are commonplace and might be innocuous,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote. The high court sided with James Snyder, a Republican who was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts to the company.

In a sharply worded dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the distinction between bribes and gratuities ignores the wording of the law aimed at rooting out public corruption.