Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (2025)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The case asked whether Medicaid recipients have a private right to sue under §1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act (the “free choice of provider” provision). The Supreme Court ruled that the Act does not unambiguously create an enforceable right for individuals to choose specific providers in federal court.

3) Why It Mattered
This decision limited beneficiaries’ ability to sue over state Medicaid provider restrictions, leaving enforcement largely to the federal government.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Took Away: A pathway for Medicaid patients to sue states over excluding providers like Planned Parenthood.
• Provided: Clarification that Congress must be explicit if it wants to create enforceable rights under Spending Clause statutes.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Supporters say the Court respected separation of powers by requiring clear statutory language. Critics argue it leaves patients without recourse when states restrict access to healthcare providers.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Medicaid patients can’t go to federal court to challenge which providers their state lets them use. Only the federal government can enforce the “free choice of provider” rule.

• Medicaid
• Healthcare
• Statutory Rights
• Federal Programs