Fourth Circuit OKs suit over Planned Parenthood funding

Charleston, S.C. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that a South Carolina woman can sue the state for removing Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid network.

The three-judge panel ruled in a unanimous decision that the Medicare and Medicaid Act grants patients an unambiguous right to choose their own qualified provider.

Patients can also sue if the government infringes that right.

U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, a Ronald Regan appointee, wrote in the opinion that a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court has created confusion among the lower courts about the rights of citizens to sue the government for civil rights violations.

But there was no ambiguity in this case, Wilkinson said.

“The ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable is a right that should not be lightly disregarded
in the face of Congress’s obvious and express desire to confer it,” Wilkinson wrote.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster issued an executive order in 2018 that barred Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and other abortion providers from receiving Medicaid payments. The governor said at the time he did not want the state to indirectly support abortion services.

Julie Edwards, a Medicaid patient, sued McMaster under the Medicare and Medicaid Act, claiming the governor’s order infringed her right to choose her preferred health care provider.

A federal judge found in Edwards’ favor in 2020, but the case was granted new life in June after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, which raised questions about the authority of citizens to file civil rights suits against government officials.

The justices determined that while citizens can sue the government for such violations, the rights must be “unambiguously” conferred by statute.

After Talevski, the Supreme Court remanded Edwards’ case for new arguments, which were held on Dec. 8.

Attorneys for South Carolina argued the Medicaid Act was ambiguous as to whether patients have a right to choose their own providers. If a patient’s right is violated, they can appeal to the state’s health agency. The federal government could also bring an enforcement action on behalf of the state’s patients.

The Fourth Circuit found the argument unconvincing.

Two years after the Medicaid Act was passed, Congress explicitly added the “free-choice-of-provider” restriction based on concerns that states were restricting beneficiaries to certain providers, Wilkinson wrote.

And the provision was clearly written to confer that right.

“If the language of this medical provider provision does not suffice to provide a right of action, then it is hard to conceive of any text, short of magic words beyond the usual practice of courts to dictate, that would permit one,” Wilkinson wrote.

U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn, a Barack Obama appointee, joined the opinion. U.S. Circuit Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, concurred in a separate opinion and also asked the Supreme Court to provide further clarity on when citizens can sue agencies for civil rights violations.

Follow @SteveGarrisonPC

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit