Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break.
On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides.
That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.
Advertisement
The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.
The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites.
Here are some major cases on the SCOTUS docket. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Advertisement
Decided: June 26, 2025
Case argued: April 2, 2025
The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally cannot be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures.
In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.'
Advertisement
What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions among the many other health services it offers. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access health care.
Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case)
Case: Trump v. CASA
Not yet decided
Case argued: May 15, 2025
Advertisement
The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order.
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order.
What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out.
If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward.
Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools
Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 22, 2025
Advertisement
Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward
The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs.
The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation.
What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality.
Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps is a balancing act
Case: Louisiana v. Callais
Not yet decided
Case argued: March 24, 2025
Advertisement
Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power
The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color.
A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district.
But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment.
Advertisement
What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections.
Age verification for porn sites
Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Not yet decided
Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025
Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you
The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights.
Advertisement
What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Not yet decided
Case argued: April 2, 2025
The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings.
What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court says states may bar women on Medicaid from using Planned Parenthood clinics
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from providing medical screenings and other healthcare for women on Medicaid. The court's conservative majority cast aside the longstanding rule that said Medicaid patients may obtain medical care from any qualified provider. In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Medicaid Act does not give patients an "individual right" to the provider of their choice. The dispute turned on abortion, even though federal funds cannot be used to perform the procedure. Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states. For decades, conservative states have sought to "defund" Planned Parenthood and argued they did not want to subsidize a leading provider of abortions. But until recently, the federal government and most courts had held that Medicaid patients may go to any qualified provider for healthcare. The legal battle hinged on whether the Medicaid Act gave a patients a right that could be protected in court. The answer was no, said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch speaking for the majority. The court's three liberals, all women, dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision "will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, 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." Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed. In theory, a Medicaid patient could file a complaint with the Trump administration and tell the Department of Health and Human Services that the state is failing to comply fully with the Medicaid Act. Planned Parenthood clinics provide cancer screenings, birth control, medical screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception and other healthcare services. Congress pays most of the state's costs for Medicaid, and the law says "any individual eligible for medical assistance" may receive care from any provider who is "qualified to perform the service." Last year, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected South Carolina's contention that it could exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. "We reaffirm that a Medicaid beneficiary may ... vindicate her right under the Medicaid Act to freely choose among qualified healthcare providers, of which Planned Parenthood is one," wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a prominent conservative and a Reagan appointee. But the court agreed to hear the state's appeal in Medina vs. Planned Parenthood. Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, called Thursday's decision "an attack on our healthcare and our freedom to make our own decisions about our bodies and lives. By allowing states to block Medicaid patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Court has chosen politics over people and cruelty over compassion." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it was "yet another shameful ruling that inserts the government directly between a patient and their doctor — just like Dobbs three years ago and Skrmetti last week. Intimate, personal decisions about health care shouldn't require sign off from extremist politicians." He was referring to the 2022 decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade and last week's ruling upholding state laws that ban hormone treatment for transgender teens. Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, praised the decision as a landmark. "We are grateful the Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to direct taxpayer dollars toward life-affirming healthcare providers,' she said. 'No one should be forced to subsidize the abortion industry with their tax dollars.' After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, South Carolina made most abortions a crime. But the state continued its legal fight to prevent Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood's clinics in Charleston and Columbia. Gov. Henry McMaster, who issued the ban on Planned Parenthood in 2018, said he did so to protect "his state's sovereign interests." Critics of the move said the state has a severe shortage of doctors and medical personnel who treat low-income patients on Medicaid. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
15 minutes ago
What to know about states blocking Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. The federal government and many states already block using Medicaid funds to cover abortion. But the state-federal health insurance program for lower-income people does pay for other services from Planned Parenthood, including birth control, cancer screenings and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. The ruling comes at a moment when Congress is considering blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Medicaid funding, a move that the group says would force hundreds of clinic closings — most of them in states where abortion remains legal. Here are things to know about the situation: This legal dispute goes back to a 2018 executive order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster that barred abortion providers from receiving Medicaid money in the state, even for services unrelated to abortion. In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overruled lower courts and said that patients don't necessarily have the right to sue for Medicaid to cover their health care from specific providers. Abortion opponents hail it as a victory on principle. 'No one should be forced to subsidize abortion,' CatholicVote President Kelsey Reinhardt said in a statement. Supporters of Planned Parenthood see the ruling as an obstacle to health care aside from abortion. Planned Parenthood 'provides services for highly disadvantaged populations and this will mean not only that many women in the state will lose their right to choose providers, but it will also mean that many women will lose services altogether,' said Lawrence Gostin, who specializes in public health law at Georgetown Law. For many people with Medicaid, Gostin said, Planned Parenthood is a trusted service provider, and it's often the closest one. Others emphasize that the people who could be most impacted are women who already face the greatest obstacles to getting health care. 'People enrolled in Medicaid, including young people and people of color, already face too many barriers to getting health care,' Kimberly Inez McGuire, the executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equality, said in a statement. 'This decision makes a difficult situation worse.' Planned Parenthood has two clinics in South Carolina, one in Charleston and one in Columbia. Combined, they've been receiving about $90,000 a year from Medicaid out of nearly $9 billion a year the program spends in the state. South Carolina has banned most abortions after six weeks gestational age, before many women realize they're pregnant. It's one of four states to bar abortion at that point. Another 12 are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy. The bans were implemented after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The most recent high court ruling isn't a guarantee that other states will follow South Carolina's lead, but Republican attorneys general of 18 other states filed court papers supporting the state's position in the case. 'We can imagine that there's anti-abortion legislators in states who are looking to this case and may try to replicate what South Carolina has done," said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. The U.S. House last month passed a budget measure that would bar all federal payments for 10 years to nonprofit groups that provide abortion and received more than $1 million in federal funding in 2024. A Senate vote on the measure, which President Donald Trump supports, could happen in coming days. Planned Parenthood says that if the measure becomes law, it would force its affiliates to close up to 200 of their 600 facilities across the U.S. The hardest-hit places would be the states where abortion is legal. If the federal effort is successful, Friedrich-Karnik said states that support abortion rights could use their own tax revenue to keep clinics open. On a call with reporters this week, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said it's a priority for her group to hobble Planned Parenthood. She said starving Planned Parenthood of Medicaid reimbursements would not have a major impact on patients, because other clinics offer similar services without providing abortion. 'Medicaid money is attached to the person, so she'll retain the same amount of money,' Dannenfelser said. 'She'll just take it to a different place.' The 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended the nationwide right to abortion jolted the abortion system across the U.S. and left clinics struggling. Women in states with bans in place now use abortion pills or travel to states where it's legal. Surveys have found that the number of monthly abortions nationally has risen since the court ruling. But over the same time period, some clinics have closed and funds that help people obtain abortion have said it's hard to stretch their money to cover the added cost of travel. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Justice Dept to probe hiring practices at University of California
By Andrew Goudsward WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Justice Department will investigate hiring practices at the University of California system to examine whether its efforts to boost faculty diversity run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, the department said in a statement on Thursday. The probe is the latest move against colleges and universities by President Donald Trump's administration, which has also launched investigations into campus antisemitism and has sought to freeze research funding. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division alleged that the university system openly measures new hires by their race and sex. The probe will investigate whether its practices represent a pattern or practice of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination. 'Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law," Harmeet Dhillion, the head of the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. A spokesperson for the University of California system said it would work with the Justice Department "in good faith" during the investigation. "The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws," the spokesperson said in a statement. "The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported." The investigation focuses on the university's strategic plan, which identifies increasing underrepresented minority and female faculty as a university goal. The probe could begin another legal battle between the Trump administration and California, the largest U.S. state and a bastion of liberal politics. The state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, sued after Trump took control of California National Guard troops to quell anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles earlier this month. The Trump administration has said it is investigating the state over a law allowing transgender athletes to compete on girls' teams in state schools.
