Strict Scrutiny Podcast Summary: SCOTUS Deals Massive Blow to Health Care Access
Episode: SCOTUS Deals Massive Blow to Health Care Access
Release Date: June 26, 2025
Hosts: Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray
Guest: Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood
Podcast Description: Strict Scrutiny is a podcast by Crooked Media that delves into the United States Supreme Court, exploring its cases, culture, and personalities with analysis from three constitutional law professors.
1. Emergency Episode Overview [01:36]
The episode kicks off with an urgent discussion surrounding a significant Supreme Court decision issued on the morning of the episode's release. The hosts highlight that the Court is nearing the end of its term, with an influx of major decisions anticipated the following day, including cases on birthright citizenship and the Voting Rights Act.
Melissa Murray:
"We are coming to you today with another emergency episode that is going to focus on the decision we got this morning in a case involving Planned Parenthood and Medicaid recipients' civil rights." [01:36]
2. Case Background: Medina vs. Planned Parenthood [02:26]
Leah Litman provides essential context about the case. In 2018, South Carolina's governor issued an executive order removing Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program, arguing that funds indirectly subsidized abortion services. This action effectively barred Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood, prompting legal challenges based on the Medicaid Act’s provisions.
Leah Litman:
“The Medicaid act allows indigent patients to get medical care from qualified providers. In 2018, South Carolina's governor issued an executive order axing Planned Parenthood from South Carolina's Medicaid program...” [02:24]
3. Supreme Court Decision and Legal Analysis [03:43]
Kate Shaw breaks down the Supreme Court's ruling, emphasizing that a majority, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, overturned previous precedents allowing private litigants to enforce federal laws like the Medicaid Act through civil rights statutes. The decision effectively permits states to defund Planned Parenthood without facing federal legal repercussions unless the federal government intervenes, which is unlikely under the current administration.
Kate Shaw:
“Justice Neil Gorsuch for the six Republican justices said that states can defund Planned Parenthood in violation of federal law and get off scot free.” [03:43]
4. Implications for Health Care Access [04:12 - 06:35]
Alexis McGill Johnson discusses the real-world consequences of the decision. Removing Planned Parenthood from Medicaid restricts access to essential health services such as STI testing, cancer screenings, birth control, and gender-affirming care, particularly affecting individuals in rural and underserved areas.
Alexis McGill Johnson:
“When South Carolina says lawmakers are allowed to essentially weaponize Medicaid for their own ideological agenda and deny patients access to care, it means the Supreme Court has now decided that not only can these patients be limited in access to going to Planned Parenthood, but they're also denied the justice of determining whether or not that insurance allows them to get that care.” [06:35]
5. Broader Impact on Civil Rights Enforcement [08:47 - 24:00]
The hosts delve into the broader implications of the decision, linking it to a strategic pattern aimed at weakening civil rights enforcement. They explain how this ruling could pave the way for similar strategies against other federal statutes, notably the Voting Rights Act (VRA), by eliminating avenues for private litigants to enforce these laws.
Leah Litman:
“This case is part of a broader concerted effort to close down avenues for civil rights enforcement... shutting down civil rights enforcement here in the context of Medicaid.” [24:00]
Melissa Murray:
“Justice Alito, in addition to decrying the abolitionist Court, also writes that in the part of the opinion that the Chief and Justice Gorsuch did not join... there is no landmark canon of construction requiring the Court to construe important legislation to its furthest possible implication.” [22:35]
6. Dissenting Opinions and Future Legal Battles [19:52 - 24:00]
The episode highlights dissenting opinions, particularly Justice Jackson's strong dissent, which underscores the historical significance of civil rights statutes and the danger of the majority's interpretation. The hosts express concern over Justice Thomas's concurrence, which threatens to reconsider entire lines of Spending Clause jurisprudence, potentially undermining decades of legal precedent.
Leah Litman:
“Justice Jackson's dissent notes that the Reconstruction era civil rights statutes like section 1983 were an exercise in grand ambition aimed at securing the rights of newly freed blacks against threats from the states.” [25:11]
Alexis McGill Johnson:
“This is the same move, because there are no new ideas. They're simply migrating it from the voting rights context to the public benefits context and shutting down civil rights enforcement here in the context of Medicaid.” [24:00]
7. Additional Cases Discussed [30:53 - 38:20]
Beyond Medina vs. Planned Parenthood, the hosts touch upon other significant Supreme Court cases, including Hewitt vs. United States, Gutierrez vs. Sands, and Riley vs. Bondi. These cases cover issues ranging from sentencing reforms under the First Step Act to standing in death penalty cases and procedural aspects of immigration law.
Kate Shaw:
“In the Sentencing case Hewitt vs United States, the Court held that the First Step Act applies to defendants sentenced after the act’s enactment, promoting more reasonable sentencing practices.” [30:53]
Leah Litman:
“Justice Sotomayor, who wrote for the Court, emphasized that Mr. Gutierrez’s challenge was about barriers to DNA testing that could exonerate him, highlighting the role of the Court in ensuring access to justice.” [36:35]
8. Shadow Docket and Immigration Decisions [39:44 - 50:14]
The discussion shifts to a controversial shadow docket decision in Department of Homeland Security vs. DVD, where the Supreme Court blocked lower court orders requiring the government to provide due process in third-country removals without explanation. The hosts criticize the Court's actions, highlighting the lack of transparency and the undermining of judicial authority.
Leah Litman:
“The court seemingly nullifies the guarantee of due process on the shadow docket and without explanation.” [40:52]
Kate Shaw:
“The government, as our friend Steve Laudick has also painstakingly detailed, has contemptuously violated lower court orders in this case at least twice.” [44:12]
Additionally, the hosts discuss the Department of Justice's unprecedented lawsuit against all judges in the District of Maryland, alleging unlawful anti-democratic orders, and the implications for judicial independence.
Alexis McGill Johnson:
“The complaint alleges that the chief judge... issued an unlawful anti-democratic order... This is a really kind of unprecedented development.” [40:52]
9. Closing Remarks and Upcoming Decisions [51:02 - 53:19]
As the episode wraps up, the hosts reflect on the day's discussions and anticipate the additional six major Supreme Court decisions to be released the following day. They emphasize the significance of staying informed and prepared for the potential impacts of these rulings on various aspects of American life.
Kate Shaw:
“Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube to catch full episodes, find us @YouTube.com Strict Scrutiny podcast. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode.” [53:10]
Notable Quotes with Timestamps
-
Leah Litman:
"Chain state separation protects us all." [00:57] -
Melissa Murray:
"It's an old joke, but when I argue against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word." [00:59] -
Kate Shaw:
"Tomorrow, they're going to be issuing six decisions, including on birthright citizenship, the Voting Rights Act, and more." [01:43] -
Alexis McGill Johnson:
"This decision means that there is largely no recourse that private litigants can take to enforce their rights if the federal government does not intervene to do so on their behalf." [04:36] -
Leah Litman:
"Two years ago, seven members of this court agreed that recipients of public benefits programs could file suit under section 1983 to enforce their rights under spending clause statute." [18:38] -
Kate Shaw:
"Justice Jackson's dissent notes that the Reconstruction era civil rights statutes like section 1983 were an exercise in grand ambition aimed at securing the rights of newly freed blacks against threats from the states." [25:11] -
Alexis McGill Johnson:
"This is part of a broader concerted effort to close down avenues for civil rights enforcement." [24:00] -
Leah Litman:
"By rewarding lawlessness, the court once again undermines that foundational principle [of due process]." [45:44] -
Kate Shaw:
"The government, as laid out in the whistleblower report, behaves so badly, resembling the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance." [45:44]
Final Thoughts
This episode of Strict Scrutiny offers a comprehensive analysis of a pivotal Supreme Court decision impacting health care access, civil rights enforcement, and broader legal precedents. Through incisive commentary and expert insights from Alexis McGill Johnson, the podcast underscores the far-reaching implications of the Court's ruling and the potential for further erosion of civil rights protections. Listeners are encouraged to stay engaged and informed as the Court prepares to issue additional landmark decisions.