Planned Parenthood and Medicaid: Medina (2025) and the one-year funding bar

Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic et al.

After all, the decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others.Majority · 606 U.S. at 369

Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in “atypical” situations, Talevski, 599 U. S., at 183, where the provision in question “clear[ly]” and “unambiguous[ly]” confers an individual “right,” Gonzaga, 536 U. S., at 290. Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) is not such a statute.Majority · 606 U.S. at 385; slip op. at 24

For another thing still, if existing remedies prove insufficient, Congress can create new ones.Majority · 606 U.S. at 385; slip op. at 23

Congress enacted the Medicaid Act’s free-choice-of-provider provision to ensure that Medicaid recipients have the right to choose their own doctors. The Court’s decision to foreclose Medicaid recipients from using §1983 to enforce that provision thwarts Congress’s will twice over: once, in dulling the tool Congress created for enforcing all federal rights, and again in vitiating one of those rights altogether.Dissent · 606 U.S. at 417 (Jackson, J., dissenting); slip op. at 21

it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the “ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.”Dissent · 606 U.S. at 418 (Jackson, J., dissenting); slip op. at 22

In July 2018 South Carolina, citing its law against public funds for abortion, removed Planned Parenthood South Atlantic's two clinics from its Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood and patient Julie Edwards sued under § 1983, relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A). The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit. This is a ruling about who may sue, not about abortion or Planned Parenthood's merits; its practical effect is that states can exclude providers from Medicaid with fewer legal obstacles.

Federal payments to prohibited entities (one-year Medicaid bar), 2025 budget reconciliation law § 71113statute

(a) In General.--No Federal funds that are considered direct spending and provided to carry out a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act or a waiver of such a plan shall be used to make payments to a prohibited entity for items and services furnished during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, including any payments made directly to the prohibited entity or under a contract or other arrangement between a State and a covered organization.

The law does not name Planned Parenthood. A 'prohibited entity' (with its affiliates) is one that, as of October 1, 2025, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, an essential community provider 'primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care', provides abortions other than for rape, incest or a life-endangering physical condition, and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid payments in fiscal year 2023 (§ 71113(b)(1)). KFF identified three affected organizations: Planned Parenthood, Maine Family Planning and Health Imperatives. It is often called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act'; the enacted Public Law carries only the title 'An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14'. It barred only federal Medicaid payments, for one year; states could pay with their own money. LITIGATION: Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Kennedy (D. Mass., Judge Indira Talwani) - preliminary injunctions for ten affiliates (July 21, 2025) and all affiliates (July 28, 2025); First Circuit stayed them (Sept. 11, 2025) and on Dec. 12, 2025 vacated both injunctions (Nos. 25-1698, 25-1755; Gelpí, Montecalvo, Aframe, JJ.), holding the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on bill-of-attainder, First Amendment and equal-protection claims. A separate suit by 22 states and DC won a preliminary injunction on Dec. 2, 2025, which the First Circuit allowed to be set aside on Dec. 30, 2025. All suits were voluntarily dismissed (Maine Family Planning Dec. 29, 2025; PPFA Jan. 20, 2026; California Mar. 17, 2026). STATUS: the one-year bar ended July 4, 2026 and Congress did not extend it (Epoch Times via Baltimore Sun, July 6, 2026). Medina still lets individual states exclude Planned Parenthood from their own Medicaid programs.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of HHS, et al.

Because Appellees are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims, we vacate the district court's July 21 and July 28, 2025, orders granting the preliminary injunctions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Majority · slip op. at 41

The appellate ruling that let § 71113 be enforced against Planned Parenthood until it expired. A preliminary-injunction ruling, not a final judgment; the case was later voluntarily dismissed.