The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic1, ruling that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision2 does not confer a right that is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This means that neither Planned Parenthood nor its patients may bring a lawsuit in federal court challenging South Carolina’s decertification of the abortion business as a Medicaid provider. Although the Supreme Court focused on the procedural issue, the case’s outcome touches broader questions of respecting the dignity of unborn human life, defunding abortion businesses, and recognizing states’ broad powers to support authentic women’s healthcare rather than elective abortions. Read more below, or click here for AUL’s full litigation analysis.

South Carolina’s Decision to Defund Planned Parenthood

In 2018, Governor Henry McMaster directed the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services “to deem abortion clinics . . . as unqualified to provide family planning services and, therefore, to immediately terminate them upon due notice and deny any future such provider enrollment applications for the same.”3 South Carolina made this decision because “the preservation of life is the ultimate right to be protected and necessarily includes the life of unborn children.”4 Likewise, South Carolina’s law directs that “State funds appropriated for family planning must not be used to pay for abortion.”5 By decertifying abortion clinics as Medicaid providers, the state avoids indirectly subsidizing abortion, and, instead, can use the funds to support authentic women’s healthcare.6

Planned Parenthood and one of its patients sued South Carolina officials in federal court over the decertification decision. The district court permanently enjoined the state officials from determining that Planned Parenthood is unqualified to provide Medicaid services solely because the clinic provides abortions.7 The Fourth Circuit affirmed.8 The state filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which the Court granted, while also vacating the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, and remanding the case to the Fourth Circuit in light of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski,9 which concerned a similar procedural question of rights that are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon remand, the Fourth Circuit again affirmed,10 contributing to the 5-2 circuit split over whether the any-qualified-provider provision contains a Section 1983-enforceble right.11

The case returned to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to review it on a single issue: “[w]hether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.”12 In other words, may Planned Parenthood bring this type of lawsuit in federal court on behalf of its patients? 

Under the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision, state plans must provide Medicaid patients “such assistance from any institution . . . or person, qualified to perform the service or services required . . . , who undertakes to provide him such services . . . .”13 Accordingly, the Medicaid patient has the benefit of deciding on their choice of a qualified provider. Planned Parenthood and its patient argued that this benefit is a right. In turn, the abortion clinic and Medicaid patient contended that they may enforce this right through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for the deprivation of a federal right.14

AUL filed an amicus brief in this case supporting South Carolina. Our brief argued that the any-qualified-provider provision does not confer a Section 1983-enforceable right.15 The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 2, 2025, and after deliberation, held that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not contain a Section 1983-enforceable right.16

Continue reading this article here.

  1. Medina v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., 606 U.S. ___ (June 26, 2025). ↩︎
  2. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A). ↩︎
  3. Pet. for a Writ of Cert. 159a, Medina, 606 U.S. ___ (No. 23-1275). ↩︎
  4. Id. at 157a. ↩︎
  5. Id. at 157a‒58a (citing S.C. Code Ann. 43-5-1185 (1997)). ↩︎
  6. Id. at 150a. ↩︎
  7. Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker, 487 F. Supp. 3d 443 (D.S.C. 2020). ↩︎
  8. Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Kerr, 27 F.4th 945 (4th Cir. 2022). ↩︎
  9. Kerr v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., 143 S. Ct. 2633 (2023) (mem.); see Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023). ↩︎
  10. Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Kerr, 95 F.4th 152 (4th Cir. 2024). ↩︎
  11. Five circuits, including the 4th Circuit in Kerr, held the any-qualified-provider provision grants a private enforceable right to the Medicaid patient. Id.; Planned Parenthood of Kan. v. Andersen, 882 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2018); Planned Parenthood Ariz. Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013); Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm’r of Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2012); Harris v. Oszewski, 442 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2006). Two Circuits, including the 5th Circuit en banc, held the any-qualified-provider provision does not confer a private enforceable right upon the Medicaid patient. Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Fam. Plan. & Preventative Health Servs., Inc. v. Kauffman, 981 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Does v. Gillespie, 867 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2017).  ↩︎
  12. Pet. for a Writ of Cert., supra note 3, at i. ↩︎
  13. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A). ↩︎
  14. Br. for Resp’ts 16–50, Medina v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (No. 23-1275). ↩︎
  15. Br. Amicus Curiae of Americans United for Life, Medina, 606 U.S. ___. ↩︎
  16. Medina, 606 U.S. ___, slip op. at 24. ↩︎

Print