Fact Check: Justice Jackson warns of 'tangible harm' from the court's latest decision
What We Know
On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Planned Parenthood and one of its patients could not sue South Carolina over the state's decision to deny Medicaid funding to the organization. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, stated that the relevant federal statute did not authorize such lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented, warning that the ruling would likely cause "tangible harm to real people" by limiting access to healthcare services provided by Planned Parenthood, which include contraception and cancer screenings, not just abortions (New York Times, Mother Jones).
Justice Jackson emphasized that the decision would deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their ability to enforce a right granted by Congress, thereby stripping them of the freedom to choose their healthcare providers (New York Times, Mother Jones). The dissent highlighted the broader implications of the ruling, suggesting it would undermine civil rights protections established during the Reconstruction era (Mother Jones, New Republic).
Analysis
The claim that Justice Jackson warned of "tangible harm" is substantiated by her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case, where she explicitly stated, "Today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people" (New York Times, Mother Jones). This statement reflects her concern that the ruling would adversely affect access to healthcare for vulnerable populations, particularly those relying on Medicaid services.
The reliability of the sources reporting on this claim is high. The New York Times is a well-established news organization known for its rigorous journalistic standards. Similarly, Mother Jones is recognized for its investigative reporting and in-depth analysis of political issues. Both sources provide a detailed account of the court's decision and Justice Jackson's dissent, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the implications of the ruling.
Critically, the dissent points out that the majority's ruling could lead to a significant reduction in healthcare options for Medicaid recipients, which is a valid concern given the context of the case. The majority opinion's focus on the technicalities of the law, rather than the real-world consequences for individuals, raises questions about the court's prioritization of legal interpretation over public welfare (New York Times, Mother Jones).
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that Justice Jackson warned of "tangible harm" from the court's latest decision is True. Her dissent clearly articulates the potential negative impacts of the ruling on real people, particularly those who rely on Medicaid for essential healthcare services. The sources used to substantiate this claim are credible and provide a thorough overview of the dissenting opinion and its implications.
