The Supreme Court’s recent rulings have left legal experts scratching their heads, particularly in cases involving implied causes of action. About a year ago, the Court handed down a decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood (2026) that seemed to defy federal Medicaid law, raising eyebrows and questions about the justices’ intentions.
The case centered around South Carolina’s violation of federal law by cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. The Court’s Republican majority appeared to twist the rules to prevent patients affected by this violation from suing to enforce their rights. This decision seemed to contradict the Court’s earlier ruling in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2026), which was decided just two years earlier.
Understanding implied causes of action
To grasp the complexity of these cases, it’s essential to understand what an implied cause of action is. This legal doctrine allows individuals to sue under a federal law that doesn’t explicitly authorize such lawsuits. The Court’s decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002) established that for a statute to create private rights to sue, its text must be phrased in terms of the persons benefited.
For instance, a law stating that no sweaty person may be denied access to a shower could be enforced through private lawsuits because it focuses on the beneficiaries. However, a law stating that states may not impede access to showers would not be enforceable through private lawsuits, as it lacks the person-focused language demanded by Gonzaga.
The Medina decision and its implications
The Medina case involved a federal law that permits Medicaid patients to choose their health providers. South Carolina violated this law by refusing to allow Medicaid patients to choose Planned Parenthood. The relevant statutory text clearly extends a right to any individualproviding that these individuals may obtain medical care from their chosen provider.
Despite this, the six Republican justices rendered this statute unenforceable. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion did not even quote the relevant legal rule established in Gonzaga. This decision has left legal experts questioning the Court’s commitment to the rule of law and the consistency of their rulings.
The FS Credit decision and the mystery deepens
On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down another opinion in FS Credit Opportunities v. Saba Capital Master Fundwhich only added to the mystery surrounding the Medina decision. Although the facts of FS Credit differ significantly from those in Medina, the legal issues are very similar, both involving implied causes of action.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion in FS Credit begins with a straightforward statement: Congress, not the Judiciary, decides who may enforce the law. The decision relies heavily on the pre-Medina framework established by cases like Gonzaga, seemingly ignoring the new rule that the Court appeared to apply in Medina.
The Court’s failure to explain the distinction between Medina and FS Credit has led to speculation that the Medina decision was not made in good faith. It appears that the Republican justices may have manipulated the rules to achieve a desired outcome, particularly in cases involving abortion providers and their patients.
The central rule in any nation governed by the rule of law is that similar cases must be treated similarly, regardless of whether a group that individual judges dislike benefits from that rule. The Medina decision fails this test, raising serious questions about the Court’s commitment to impartial justice.
