Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the U.S. Supreme Court held by 6-3 that states can excluded the abortion provider Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even for non-abortion services. Planned Parenthood and individuals lack legal standing to challenge this, as Medicaid is entirely an arrangement between states and the federal government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the Court, and led with this:

“

Medicaid offers States “a bargain.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U. S. 320, 323, 135 S. Ct. 1378, 191 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2015). In return for federal funds, States agree “to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions.” Ibid. Should a State fail to comply substantially with those conditions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can withhold some or all of its federal Medicaid funding. This case poses the question whether, in addition to that remedy, individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials for failing to comply with one funding condition spelled out in 42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(23)(A).

”

Medina v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., No. 23-1275, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2492, at *8 (June 26, 2025).

The following 14 states have attempted to excluded Planned Parenthood from Medicaid:

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

The heart of the decision was this holding:

“

Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) states that Medicaid plans must “provide that . . . any individual eligible for medical assistance . . . may obtain such assistance from any . . . qualified” provider. This language addresses state duties and may benefit providers and patients, but lacks FNHRA’s clear “rights-creating language,” Talevski, 599 U. S., at 186, 143 S. Ct. 1444, 216 L. Ed. 2d 183 (internal quotation marks omitted). Congress knows how to create clear rights, as FNHRA shows by giving nursing-home residents “the right to choose a personal attending physician.” §1396r(c)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). But that is not the law here.

”

Medina v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., No. 23-1275, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2492, at *5-6 (June 26, 2025).