The Supreme Court’s decision to take on a new case, announced on Wednesday, shouldn’t prove difficult.
The question is whether a federal law requiring states’ Medicaid programs to guarantee that “any individual eligible for medical assistance” can access that care “from,” actually empowers Medicaid recipients to select any healthcare provider licensed to deliver the services they seek.
The statutory language reviewed has likely raised doubts as to why this legal controversy led to litigation initially – the law itself being unambiguously explicit that “any” Medicaid patient may choose “any” provider certified to deliver care. While there are two primary reasons, one sanctioned and one political, that contribute significantly to its contentious nature, ultimately making it a case worthy of being heard by the Supreme Court.
The main issue stems from the Supreme Court’s ambiguous guidelines regarding when an individual can bring a lawsuit to enforce a provision of federal Medicaid law, which, although not overly complex, still fail to ensure Medicaid recipients’ right to choose a healthcare provider. This second, striking, reason is that the presence of Deliberate Parenthood in this case has led some outlier judges to allow anti-abortion political ideologies to supersede a federal law that was explicitly crafted.
South Carolina was among several states that attempted to bar Planned Parenthood from participating in its Medicaid program, effectively preventing patients from seeking care at the esteemed reproductive health organization. In 2018, Republican Gov. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed an executive order prohibiting healthcare providers from receiving payment for providing care to Medicaid patients. Although the Supreme Court’s decision had been made, South Carolina still persisted.
Soon after McMaster’s order, the South Carolina affiliate of Planned Parenthood and an individual affected by Planned Parenthood sued, citing federal law that guarantees Medicaid recipients the right to choose their healthcare provider. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which oversees North Carolina as part of its jurisdiction, has consistently held that federal law means exactly what its plain text suggests it means.
The vast majority of federal appeals courts exhibited a balance of power when various states implemented regulations akin to those found in the McMaster system. However, two outliers, a and b, failed to concur. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2023, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had issued conflicting opinions on the issue of Medicaid patients’ right to bring federal lawsuits, with their rulings predating the high court’s clarifying ruling.
Even in seemingly trivial legal disputes, it’s astonishing that a controversy as divisive as abortion can spark such heated debates and sharp divisions. The possibility remains that the Supreme Court accepted the case solely to reiterate its previous decision
To ensure consistency throughout the nation, the ultimate goal of having a Supreme Court at the apex of the federal judiciary is to maintain uniformity in federal law – an act of Congress should have the same meaning in South Carolina as it does in Texas – thus, the justices frequently intervene to.
Despite controversy surrounding the topic, this case still involves abortion. The Republican-appointed justices hold a 6-3 majority on the US Supreme Court’s docket. Five members from this legislative majority have a concerning record of actively working to limit and restrict abortion access. The possibility exists that the Court may strike a blow against Medicaid recipients’ right to choose their own healthcare provider, potentially putting vulnerable individuals in harm’s way.
What are the primary concerns at the heart of cardiac care?
Arguably, the Civil Rights Act’s provision known as “Section 1983” is a pivotal piece of legislation that enables state officials to be held accountable in federal court for depriving individuals of constitutional or statutory rights and privileges secured by the Constitution and laws. Without this statute, victims of unconstitutional or illegal actions would typically lack a remedy, as they could not bring a lawsuit seeking vindication of their rights.
Notwithstanding this limitation, Part 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of federal statutes; instead, individuals can pursue claims under this provision only if they have been deprived of a constitutional right or privilege. The Supreme Court’s 1997 docket highlighted the requirement for plaintiffs to establish violations of specific, enforceable federal laws, rather than simply federal ones, stating “a plaintiff should assert the violation of a federal law, not merely a violation of federal law.” This ruling led to the development of a framework guiding which federal statutes confer individual rights actionable through private lawsuits.
However, despite the inherent complexity of this framework, the underlying issue remains straightforward: The Supreme Court’s recent reaffirmation of its precedent prompts the crucial inquiry: Is the relevant federal statute “incorporative” in nature, and does it employ “rights-creating,” individual-focused language with a clear intent to benefit a specific group?
A hypothetical federal statute mandating that no state can deny an individual the right to play golf if they own golf equipment could potentially be enforced through federal litigation. A proposed statute declaring states shall not hinder the enjoyment of golf, paradoxically precludes individual claims for relief, since this statutory phrasing fails to specify which entities would benefit from the legislation’s implementation.
What drives innovation in today’s fast-paced business environment?
A state plan for medical assistance should provide that any entity, including establishments, companies, neighborhood pharmacies, and individuals, certified to deliver the required services (together with those corporations which furnish such services, or arrange for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertake to render such services.
The language employed here is characterized by an individual-centric tone and a palpable focus on the beneficiary class, as noted by the Court in . It provides a guarantee to any individual eligible for medical benefits. These individuals have access to obtain medical care from a provider of their choice. The passage ends with the mention of “him”, which serves as a subtle yet effective pointer back to those individuals who ultimately benefit from the policy’s implementation.
If the court adheres to existing laws and its recent ruling in , it logically follows that it will favour the plaintiffs in . It’s improbable that a case involving this specific provision of Medicaid law would have reached the Supreme Court docket in the first place, or been reviewed by any appeals court for that matter, without the added controversy surrounding abortion.
