Fact Check: Supreme Court Blocks Planned Parenthood from Suing South Carolina Over Medicaid Funding Loss
What We Know
On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, stating that Planned Parenthood and a patient could not sue South Carolina over the state's decision to cut Medicaid funding to the organization. This ruling allows South Carolina to terminate Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which has provided non-abortion health care services for decades, including cancer screenings and birth control (Supreme Court upholds South Carolina's ban on Medicaid).
The case arose after South Carolina's Governor Henry McMaster issued an order in 2018 to stop public funding for any medical practice associated with abortion clinics. This decision was part of a broader effort by Republican-led states to limit funding for Planned Parenthood, which has been a target for defunding due to its provision of abortion services (US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund). The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, emphasized that the federal Medicaid Act does not grant individuals the right to sue states over funding decisions, thereby reversing a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed (Supreme Court Rules Planned Parenthood Cannot Sue).
Analysis
The Supreme Court's decision is significant as it reinforces states' rights to determine funding for Medicaid providers, particularly those that offer abortion services. The majority opinion reflects a judicial philosophy that prioritizes state authority over individual rights in this context, which has been a contentious issue in U.S. law. Critics of the ruling, including Planned Parenthood officials, argue that it undermines access to essential health care services for low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid (Supreme Court allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for).
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is high, as they include major news outlets and official court documents. The Washington Post, NPR, and Reuters are well-respected for their journalistic standards and fact-checking processes. The Supreme Court's official opinion document provides the legal basis for the ruling, detailing the court's reasoning and the implications of the decision (23-1275 Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic).
However, it is important to note that the ruling has sparked significant public debate and dissent, particularly among liberal justices who argue that it restricts access to necessary health care and undermines the rights of Medicaid patients (Supreme Court upholds South Carolina's ban on Medicaid). The dissenting opinions highlight concerns about the broader implications of such rulings on reproductive health care access across the country.
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court blocked Planned Parenthood from suing South Carolina over Medicaid funding loss is True. The court's ruling explicitly prevents Planned Parenthood and its patients from seeking legal recourse against the state for its funding decisions, thereby allowing South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funding to the organization. This decision reflects a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding state control over Medicaid funding and access to reproductive health services.
