The Supreme Court just slammed the door on Planned Parenthood’s latest legal gambit. On Thursday, the court ruled 6-3 that neither Planned Parenthood nor a South Carolina woman, Julie Edwards, has standing to challenge South Carolina’s decision to boot the organization from its Medicaid program, as SCOTUS Blog reports. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion delivered a sharp rebuke to progressive overreach, prioritizing statutory clarity over activist agendas.
In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster ordered Planned Parenthood excluded from the state’s Medicaid program, arguing its abortion services indirectly benefited from fungible Medicaid funds. Edwards, who wanted Planned Parenthood for all her gynecological care, and the organization itself sued, claiming the exclusion violated the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision. The Supreme Court’s decision reversed a 4th Circuit ruling that had sided with Planned Parenthood, reaffirming that federal law doesn’t bend to every plaintiff’s whim.
Congress established Medicaid in 1965 to provide healthcare for over 72 million low-income Americans, but federal law bars using those funds for abortions. South Carolina’s move to defund Planned Parenthood sparked this legal battle, with Edwards and Planned Parenthood leaning on the Medicaid Act’s requirement that patients can choose “any qualified provider.” The Supreme Court, however, found this provision too vague to justify private lawsuits under federal civil rights laws.
Justice Gorsuch’s opinion cut through the noise with precision. He argued that federal laws, especially those tied to Congress’ spending power, don’t automatically grant enforceable rights. “Do not confer ‘rights’ enforceable,” Gorsuch wrote, signaling that progressives can’t twist every statute into a litigation weapon.
The Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” rule, Gorsuch noted, lacks the clear intent needed for private lawsuits. Unlike the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which explicitly grants residents the right to choose their doctor, the Medicaid provision is ambiguous. This comparison exposed the weakness in Planned Parenthood’s case, as Gorsuch suggested Congress could clarify the law, but hasn’t.
Gorsuch emphasized that when states violate federal funding conditions, the remedy is typically a funding cut-off, not a courtroom circus. Private lawsuits, he argued, require a “demanding bar” that the Medicaid Act fails to meet. This reasoning keeps unelected judges from rewriting policy under the guise of civil rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, took a broader swing. He suggested the court should rethink what counts as a “right” under federal civil rights laws, noting their narrow origins in Reconstruction-era statutes. Thomas’ call for restraint is a warning shot to those who inflate federal power to push progressive causes.
South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood isn’t the end of the road for the organization. State law allows Planned Parenthood to challenge the decision through administrative processes or state courts. This ruling simply keeps federal courts from becoming the default battleground for every policy dispute.
The dissent, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, predictably cried foul. Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Jackson claimed the “any qualified provider” provision grants individual rights. Her argument leans on the provision’s title, “FREE CHOICE BY INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE,” but titles don’t make laws enforceable.
Jackson’s dissent accused the majority of “stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws.” This hyperbolic rhetoric ignores the court’s duty to interpret laws as written, not as activists wish. Her attempt to paint the ruling as an attack on Medicaid recipients’ rights overreaches, given the law’s ambiguity.
Jackson argued that Congress intended the provision to stop states from steering Medicaid patients to specific providers. “Unambiguously confer[s] individual federal rights,” she insisted, but her logic crumbles under scrutiny. If Congress wanted such a right, it could have written the law as clearly as the nursing-home statute.
The dissent’s reliance on the 2023 nursing-home case as a flawed benchmark only weakens its case. Jackson criticized the majority for using it as the sole model, but Gorsuch’s point was simple: Congress knows how to signal enforceable rights, and it didn’t here. The nursing-home law’s clarity exposes the Medicaid Act’s vagueness.
This decision is a win for states’ rights and fiscal responsibility. South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood reflects a principled stand against indirectly funding abortion providers. Gov. McMaster’s 2018 directive was a bold move to ensure taxpayer dollars don’t prop up controversial organizations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also curbs the misuse of federal civil rights laws. By requiring clear congressional intent for private lawsuits, the court prevents activist groups from weaponizing vague statutes. This keeps the judiciary focused on law, not politics.
Planned Parenthood and its allies may cry victim, but the court’s decision is grounded in legal restraint. Edwards can still seek care elsewhere, and Planned Parenthood can fight its exclusion in state venues. The ruling simply ensures that federal courts aren’t the go-to arena for every progressive grievance.
