Posted on 06/26/2025 9:24:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states can ban Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, reversing an earlier appeals court ruling against South Carolina's bid to defund the nation's largest abortion provider.
The high court released its opinion in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood on Thursday morning, ruling 6-3 that federal law does not stop the Palmetto State from banning abortion providers from Medicaid.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, being joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
"To prove that a statute secures an enforceable right, privilege, or immunity, and does not just provide a benefit or protect an interest, a plaintiff must show that the law in question 'clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]' uses 'rights-creating terms,'" wrote Gorsuch.
"After announcing that state Medicaid plans must allow individuals to obtain care from any qualified provider, the provision proceeds to carve out various exceptions to that rule. … Neither paragraph [in the statute] uses clear and unambiguous rights-creating language, so neither supports a private suit under [42 United States Code §1983]."
Gorsuch also wrote that there is a "longstanding line between mere benefits and enforceable rights" and that it is up to Congress to provide states with "clear and unambiguous notice of an individually enforceable right."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, writing that "under a faithful application of our unambiguous-conferral test, the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision readily creates an enforceable right."
"To prevent States from interfering with Medicaid recipients' freedom to choose their own providers, Congress adopted nearly identical language from a provision of the Medicare Act that — in both purpose and effect — had guaranteed that right to Medicare beneficiaries," Jackson added.
"Congress made a deliberate choice to protect Medicaid recipients' ability to choose their own providers by employing statutory language that it knew, based on its Medicare experience, would achieve that end. Congress's intent could not have been clearer."
In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster gave an order to the state's Department of Health and Human Services to end Medicaid agreements with any abortion providers.
Planned Parenthood, which operated two facilities in the state, filed a lawsuit along with a patient, with a federal district court blocking state enforcement of the order.
In March 2024, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the lower court decision, with Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, authoring the opinion.
"This case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their healthcare provider," wrote Wilkinson.
"Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina."
In a miscellaneous order released last December, the Supreme Court agreed without comment to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case, then known as Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
The arguments were to focus on question 1 of the petition, which asked the high court to determine if "the Medicaid Act's any-qualified provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider."
The Senate Parlamentarian [Harry Reid’s girl in charge] hasn’t OK’ed the Supreme Fart decision yet.
I can’t begin to imagine why that wouldn’t be allowed.
“Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina.”
I have to assume the judge who wrote the above previous opinion is now being looked after in a place where his senility will not lead to any more harm to himself or the law.
Will a lower court judge over rule the U.S.S.C.again?
re: Brian Murphy.
But we can’t ban criminaliens from Medicaid, decrees the Senate parliamentarian.
A federal judge nixed a CA referendum banning public welfare for illegals back in the ‘90s. Viola, 2025: a once golden state overrun with Mexicans, including public officials (LA’s Garcia) urging their gangs to fight ICE.
A unanimous decision: 6 - 0.
Freepers, you can post your apology letters to Justice Barrett here!
When are these gutless wonders going to clean up the mess in the lower Federal courts, as they make automatic rulings against Donald Trump? Until then they are useless.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.
JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1275_e2pg.pdf
The usual idiots
"After all, the decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation."
You're kidding right?
Many can't tell you in detail WHY they disagree with her decision. And several of those most critical of AJ Barrett are against women having the right to vote.
Here is the analysis of the decision from scotusblog.
“Court decides against Planned Parenthood”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-decides-against-planned-parenthood/
(I bet Amy Howe hated having to write an article under that headline).
I wish the Supreme Court would acknowledge that unborn babies are persons with the right to due process and equal protection.
Totally agree!
And ACB is light years better than baby killer RBG
That's not what the Court ruled. The Court held that Medicaid providers and beneficiaries, singularly or as part of a class action, have no legal right to sue the state under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law) for banning Plan Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program. The Court specifically noted that Planned Parenthood has other remedies under federal and state law to challenge its exclusion from the Medicaid program, but 42 U.S.C 1982 is not one of them. The Court did not rule one way or the other whether South Carolina can exclude Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program; rather, it ruled the 42 USC 1983 may not be used to challenge the exclusion.
Hookers and milk men hit hardest
Thank God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.