Supreme Court Upholds Medicaid Rights, Allows Beneficiaries to Sue States For Violation

In a highly anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld a crucial mechanism regarding Medicaid rights that allows beneficiaries of federal spending programs to sue states for violating their rights.

A broad coalition of the Supreme Court achieved a favorable outcome upholding Medicaid rights. (Photo: New York Times)

Supreme Court Upholds Medicaid Rights

The case, which originated from a Medicaid dispute involving a mistreated nursing home resident, drew significant attention and concern from activists and experts who feared that the Court would undermine programs like Medicaid, MSN reported.

The case centered around the challenge brought forth by the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana (HHC), a municipal-run nursing home. The outcome of this case had the potential to impact the future of Medicaid rights and similar programs significantly.

Observers likened the case’s significance to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a recent Supreme Court decision on abortion rights.

As activists rallied to pressure the HHC board to drop the case, the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late 2022.

However, to the surprise of many, a broad coalition achieved a favorable outcome.

READ ALSO: Surprising Numbers Of Americans Will Lose Insurance As Medicaid Purge Begins

SC Justices Who Supported Medicaid Rights

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts, delivered a majority opinion upholding the mechanism for beneficiaries to sue and uphold their Medicaid rights.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The result left those heavily invested in the case astounded.

Bryce Gustafson, an organizer with Indiana’s Citizens Action Coalition, expressed his emotional response, saying, “I think I’m going to cry now.” Legal experts also hailed the decision as a significant victory for rights under federal spending clause programs.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that nursing home residents and other Medicaid beneficiaries retain their rights.

It affirms decades of federal law and recognizes the importance of holding states accountable for providing the full range of services required by these federally funded programs.

The mechanism to sue, known as private rights of action under Section 1983, is crucial for individuals who rely on programs like Medicaid, SNAP, or WIC. It acts as a safeguard, allowing them to seek recourse when states fail to fulfill their obligations.

Justices Gorsuch and Barrett issued separate concurrences, raising additional considerations. Gorsuch posed questions about spending clause rights, while Barrett emphasized the need for cautious interpretation of Section 1983 suits.

Justice Thomas, in a characteristic manner, argued against the legitimacy of 1983 rights of action under federal spending clause legislation, asserting that such conditions are unconstitutional.

Justice Alito’s dissent took a narrower stance, contending that remedies for nursing home patients’ rights violations are already embedded in the Medicaid statute. He argued that allowing Section 1983 suits would upset the delicate balance established by the law.

While the ruling delivers a significant victory for Medicaid rights and federal spending programs, it also reaffirms the ongoing debates surrounding the scope and application of Section 1983.

The Supreme Court’s decision offers clarity and reassurance to Medicaid rights while underscoring the need to protect individual rights within federal vital programs.

READ ALSO: Rule To Tackle Racial Bias: Vice President Kamala Harris Announces Effort To Address Biased Home Valuations