Supreme Court hears arguments in Medina versus Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case

In a pivotal Supreme Court session on April 2, 2025, justices engaged in a heated debate over the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which centers on whether individuals can sue states under Section 1983 for denying them the right to choose their healthcare providers. The case arises from South Carolina's decision to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider, a move that has sparked significant legal and social implications.

The arguments presented by both sides highlighted the complexities of interpreting federal spending laws and the rights of individuals under Medicaid. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bursch, argued that the statute in question lacks clear rights-creating language, which he claimed is necessary for individuals to have enforceable rights. He emphasized that terms like "right" or "entitlement" are essential for states to understand their obligations and the potential for legal repercussions if they fail to comply. Bursch contended that the absence of such language in the "any qualified provider" provision means that states are not on clear notice of their responsibilities, thus shielding them from lawsuits.

Conversely, counsel for the respondents, Ms. Saharsky, asserted that the statute does indeed confer individual rights, as it explicitly states that individuals may obtain care from any qualified provider. She argued that the language used is mandatory and individual-centric, fulfilling the requirements set forth in previous Supreme Court rulings, including Gonzaga and Talevsky. Saharsky maintained that Congress intended to protect individuals from state actions that limit their access to healthcare providers, particularly in light of historical attempts by states to restrict Medicaid beneficiaries' choices.

The justices probed the implications of the case, questioning whether the lack of explicit rights-creating language undermines the enforceability of the statute. Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about the potential consequences of allowing states to define "qualified" providers based on non-medical criteria, which could lead to arbitrary exclusions that harm vulnerable populations.

As the session concluded, the justices were left to deliberate on the balance between federal authority and state discretion in administering Medicaid, as well as the broader implications for individual rights in healthcare access. The outcome of this case could reshape the landscape of Medicaid provisions and the enforcement of rights for millions of Americans, particularly those relying on state-funded healthcare services. The court's decision is anticipated to provide much-needed clarity on the enforceability of rights under federal spending statutes, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving healthcare access and individual rights.