Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Medicaid patients cannot sue to enforce free-choice-of-provider, clearing path to exclude Planned Parenthood
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 26, 2025, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that Medicaid enrollees cannot use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the program's free-choice-of-provider provision in federal court. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion held the provision imposes duties on states without conferring individual rights that § 1983 protects, allowing South Carolina's exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid to stand. At least 14 other states had enacted or attempted similar exclusions, each now free of judicial check by patients through this mechanism.
Actors
On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that Medicaid enrollees cannot use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the program's free-choice-of-provider provision in federal court. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority — Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — holding that the provision's requirement that states allow enrollees to choose "any qualified" provider imposes a duty on states without conferring an individual "right" cognizable under § 1983. The case arose from South Carolina's 2018 executive order barring Medicaid patients from receiving non-abortion services — contraception, STI testing, and cancer screenings — from Planned Parenthood clinics.
Section 1983 is the principal federal civil rights statute that allows individuals to sue state governments for denying federally protected rights. Before this ruling, Planned Parenthood and individual Medicaid patients had used § 1983 suits to block exclusion orders in multiple states, with federal courts consistently finding the free-choice provision created enforceable rights. At least 14 states had enacted or attempted similar exclusion orders that had been stopped in court through this mechanism; South Carolina's order had been blocked since it was first issued in 2018.
Justice Jackson's dissent, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor, argued that the majority's reading converts a rights-granting statute into an unenforceable state obligation, effectively rendering the free-choice provision without legal force for the patients it was meant to protect. Healthcare policy analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation projected the ruling would accelerate exclusion orders in states with pending restrictions, with particular impact on low-income patients in rural areas who rely on Planned Parenthood as their only affordable source of reproductive and preventive healthcare. The ruling came as Congress was advancing reconciliation legislation that would federally defund Planned Parenthood in all 50 states.
The Court's decision eliminates the judicial backstop that previously deterred states from excluding Medicaid patients' chosen providers without consequence. Without § 1983 as an enforcement mechanism, the free-choice-of-provider guarantee becomes effectively unenforceable by individual patients, leaving low-income Americans dependent on Medicaid with no individual remedy when states cut access to their providers.
Why we recorded this
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood eliminates the primary legal mechanism Medicaid patients used to enforce their right to choose among qualified providers. Without § 1983 suits, states face no judicial check on decisions to exclude Planned Parenthood and similar clinics from Medicaid, leaving millions of low-income patients with no recourse when coverage access is cut.
Sources
- Supreme Court upholds South Carolina's ban on Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood — NPR primary accessed June 24, 2026
- Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic — Opinion (No. 23-1275) — Supreme Court of the United States primary accessed June 24, 2026
- SCOTUS Ruling on Medina v. Planned Parenthood Will Limit Access to Care — KFF secondary accessed June 24, 2026
- Supreme Court clears way for states to deny Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood — PBS NewsHour secondary accessed June 24, 2026
See also
- Supreme Court 7-2 stayed injunction blocking CHNV parole termination, enabling DHS to revoke status for 532,000 noncitizens
- Trump signed EO 14321 directing DOJ to dismantle ADA Olmstead protections and expand forced civil commitment of homeless people with disabilities
- Supreme Court ruled 6-3 district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, eliminating key civil rights enforcement tool
- Kansas invalidates driver's licenses and birth certificates of 1,000+ transgender residents
- Education Department terminates six civil-rights agreements protecting transgender students
