So far this term the Supreme Court has allowed states to ban gender transition care for youth, made it easier for white people and other “majority” group members to prove workplace discrimination and temporarily cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport people to countries they’re not from. We talk about the impact of these rulings and other cases still to be decided.
Supreme Court Rulings This Term Impact Immigrants, Transgender Youth, EPA Regulations

Guests:
Rory Little, Emeritus Professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law, UC Law, San Francisco
Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, NYU School of Law - co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast
This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Mina Kim: Welcome to Forum. I’m Mina Kim. So far this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to ban gender transition care for youth, made it easier for white people—or other majority group members—to bring workplace discrimination claims, and temporarily cleared the way for South Carolina to block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.
This hour, we’ll talk about the impact of these rulings and look ahead to the biggest decisions expected tomorrow. Joining us is Rory Little, emeritus professor of constitutional and criminal law at UC Law San Francisco. Hi, Rory.
Professor Little: Hi, very happy to be here.
Mina Kim: Glad to have you. And Melissa Murray is with us—professor of law at NYU and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Hi, Melissa.
Professor Murray: Hi, Mina. Great to be here.
Mina Kim: Great to have you. Let’s start with the Planned Parenthood ruling. Melissa, by siding with South Carolina, what did the Supreme Court essentially do?
Professor Murray: This case is really about procedure—specifically, whether and under what circumstances individuals who receive public benefits, like Medicaid, can sue when their rights under a funding statute are denied.
Under the Medicaid statute, states get federal funds to reimburse qualified providers for services. Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions but also a broad range of healthcare, has long been designated a qualified provider. But in 2018, the governor of South Carolina issued an executive order arguing that because money is fungible, any public subsidy to Planned Parenthood indirectly funds abortion. So, South Carolina blocked Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their provider. That means patients must pay out of pocket for care they would otherwise be reimbursed for.
The legal question was whether a Medicaid recipient or Planned Parenthood itself could sue South Carolina under Section 1983—a traditional civil rights statute—for violating rights guaranteed under the Medicaid Act. The Court said no. They ruled that because the Medicaid statute doesn’t explicitly say it creates a private right to sue, such enforcement is not available.
This sets a major precedent—not just in the context of reproductive health, but for civil rights enforcement more broadly. It calls into question the ability of individuals to sue when public benefits are denied under federal statutes.
Mina Kim: This ruling also reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Legal analysts say this decision could open the door for more states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs. Do you see that happening? And could this go beyond Planned Parenthood?
Professor Murray: Yes, I think this will embolden other states to follow suit and exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs. But more broadly, this case isn’t just about Planned Parenthood—it’s about whether individuals can bring lawsuits to enforce their civil rights at all.
We’re seeing similar arguments in cases related to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Conservatives are now saying that only the federal government—not private citizens—can challenge suppressive voter laws under Section 2. That’s deeply problematic, because if a state is suppressing voting rights, it’s not going to sue itself. And depending on who’s in power, the federal government may not act either. Private lawsuits have historically been the backbone of civil rights enforcement—and this ruling begins to strip that away.
Mina Kim: Rory, if a patient can’t sue a state when it blocks them from seeing the provider they want, where can they go for a remedy? Melissa seems to suggest: basically nowhere.
Professor Little: Right. Justice Gorsuch might say, “Congress can fix this by clarifying the law.” But let’s be honest—that’s a joke. Congress is gridlocked, and it’s not going to pass anything anytime soon, especially not something that might be seen as supporting abortion access.
Melissa is absolutely right: this is a major civil rights decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, comparing it to 19th-century rulings where the Court gutted the enforcement power of the 14th Amendment—cases like The Slaughter-House Cases and United States v. Cruikshank.
Congress passed civil rights statutes after the Civil War to guarantee rights for formerly enslaved people. Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted those statutes very narrowly. This case follows that same pattern. Even though the Medicaid Act says patients have the right to choose any “qualified provider,” South Carolina is redefining what counts as “qualified” for political reasons.
Mina Kim: So essentially, the state can override the patient’s right to choose their own doctor. Melissa, were you surprised by this outcome?
Professor Murray: I wasn’t surprised by the outcome. What did surprise me was the Court’s complete disregard for precedent.
We have nearly 60 years of case law affirming that Congress, through its spending power, can create entitlements for individuals—even if the statute doesn’t explicitly say so. The Medicaid Act is from the 1960s, like many similar statutes. Courts have consistently held that these laws create enforceable rights and that Section 1983 is an appropriate vehicle to bring those claims.
Even just two years ago, in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, the Court ruled 7–2 that a man could sue under Section 1983 for violations of his rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act. That was the same Court—seven of the same justices!
But apparently this case is different. I’m not sure why. I’m not on the Supreme Court.
Mina Kim: We’re talking about the most significant Supreme Court rulings this term—both those already decided and those still to come. This morning, the Court ruled that states can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and that neither the organization nor the patient had the right to sue. Listeners, what are your questions about this decision or others yet to come? Email us at forum@kqed.org, find us on social @kqedforum, or call 866-733-6786.
Melissa, let’s turn to another major health care case decided last week: United States v. Skrmetti, which addressed minors’ access to gender-affirming care in Tennessee. Can you walk us through that one?
Professor Murray: Sure. Tennessee passed a law that bans certain medical treatments when they’re used to prevent the development of a person’s gender as assigned at birth.
For example, a person assigned female at birth couldn’t use puberty blockers to prevent the onset of female puberty in order to transition. The law was challenged as unconstitutional—on the grounds that it discriminated based on sex and targeted transgender people.
But in a 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, the Court said this law wasn’t sex-based discrimination. They ruled it didn’t warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, they applied “rational basis” review—the most lenient standard—and upheld the law.
What’s especially concerning is that some justices seemed eager to go even further. They signaled that transgender people might not be entitled to any special constitutional protections at all. That could have huge implications for future civil rights cases.
Mina Kim: Are you referring to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence?
Professor Murray: I am. It was particularly ironic, coming right after a New York Times profile that speculated she might be drifting left. Her concurrence made clear she is not.
She argued that transgender people don’t qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause. And she proposed narrowing the criteria for identifying protected classes—suggesting courts should only consider groups with a history of legal discrimination, not just social or cultural discrimination.
That would radically shrink the scope of civil rights protections for many marginalized groups.
Mina Kim: Rory, I know we’re heading into a break, but quickly: how far could this ruling go? Could it be used to limit gender-affirming care for adults too? Or even more broadly restrict transgender rights?
Professor Little: This ruling absolutely opens the door to broader applications. Whether it will be applied that way remains to be seen. But to say this doesn’t involve sex discrimination is linguistically baffling. And yes, it could be used to justify more restrictions—not just for minors, but potentially for adults as well.
Mina Kim: More on this after the break. I’m Mina Kim.