The GOP is going after Medicaid and Planned Parenthood at the Supreme Court
Republicans' war on abortion and Planned Parenthood could wind up curbing Medicaid patients' health care for things having nothing to do with abortion — such as cancer screenings, blood work and annual physicals. Whether that happens could become clearer at a Supreme Court hearing Wednesday, which coincides with the broader GOP push for Medicaid cuts nationwide.
The technical legal issue before the justices deals with whether people who use the low-income assistance program can choose their providers and sue to enforce their rights.
The case started before the Supreme Court's GOP-appointed majority overturned federal abortion rights in 2022. Four years earlier, South Carolina's Republican governor, Henry McMaster, had sought to bar abortion clinics from Medicaid participation, and the state told Planned Parenthood that it could no longer service Medicaid beneficiaries.
That raised legal questions under part of the federal Medicaid Act known as the 'free choice of provider' provision, which says states must let anyone eligible for assistance obtain the care from any 'qualified' provider.
A federal appeals court panel ruled against the state last year, reasoning that the provision 'specifies an entitlement given to each Medicaid beneficiary: to choose one's preferred qualified provider without state interference.'
In a decision written by Reagan appointee J. Harvie Wilkinson, the panel stressed that its ruling was about not abortion but rather 'whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their healthcare provider.'
Wilkinson noted that if Planned Parenthood clinics were to close in South Carolina, 'other Medicaid-funded clinics in the state would be more hard-pressed to meet the demand in family planning care.' Siding with the provider and a woman insured through Medicaid who wanted to go there, the judge said that's 'precisely the prospect Congress wished to avoid.'
The state appealed to the Supreme Court, represented by the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which litigates abortion and other issues aligned with Republican policies. In its high court petition, the state called the issue one of 'great national importance.' The justices granted review and set oral argument for Wednesday. The Trump administration supports the state.
Among Planned Parenthood's backers are Medicaid beneficiaries who told the justices in an amicus brief that they rely on the provider for health care services having nothing to do with abortion, 'including annual physicals, blood work, screenings for various forms of cancer, infertility and prenatal services — indeed, some patients rely on Planned Parenthood for virtually all their healthcare needs.'
They wrote that their experiences show 'just how important it is that the courthouse door remain open when States attempt to bar patients insured by Medicaid from seeking care from the qualified provider of their choice.'
A decision in the case, known as Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, is expected by July, when the court typically finishes issuing the term's rulings.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Acting NJ U.S. Attorney Alina Habba says Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted
A grand jury indicted U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver on charges related to an incident at Delaney Hall in Newark last month, according to a social media post made by acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba. McIver was at Delaney Hall with U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman and U.S. Rep. Rob Menendez to "inspect the treatment of ICE detainees at Delaney Hall." All three are Democrats. The congresswoman said in a statement the 'facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: a brazen attempt at political intimidation. 'This indictment is no more justified than the original charges, and is an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused and scare me out of doing the work I was elected to do,' McIver said. 'But it won't work — I will not be intimidated. The facts are on our side, I will be entering a plea of not guilty, I'm grateful for the support of my community, and I look forward to my day in court.' Habba said the federal grand jury 'returned a three-count indictment' against McIver for 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers.' 'It is my constitutional obligation as the chief federal law enforcement officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties,' she said. 'While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve.' The three counts have a maximum penalty of eight years for count one, an additional maximum penalty of eight years for count two and a maximum penalty of one year for count three. Earlier: NJ Rep. LaMonica McIver makes court appearance for assault charges in Newark ICE incident McIver said in a statement on May 19 she and her colleagues were "fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before, and our visit should have been peaceful and short." "Instead, ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka," she said. "The charges against me are purely political -- they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight." Newark Mayor Ras Baraka had been arrested at Delaney Hall for trespassing but the charges have since been dropped. He is suing Habba for 'false arrest and malicious prosecution.' McIver's lawyer, Paul Fishman, served as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey during the Obama administration. He said in May the "decision to charge Congresswoman McIver is spectacularly inappropriate." "She went to Delaney Hall to do her job. As a member of Congress, she has the right and responsibility to see how ICE is treating detainees," Fishman said. "Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos. This prosecution is an attempt to shift the blame for ICE's behavior to Congresswoman McIver. In the courtroom, facts — not headlines — will matter." Katie Sobko covers the New Jersey Statehouse. Email: sobko@ This article originally appeared on NJ U.S. Attorney Alina Habba: Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted
