Samuel Alito Questions Attorney During Supreme Court Hearing About Planned Parenthood

4/2/2025

Justice Samuel Alito questions attorneys during oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00We could say, say it again, what we said in Gonzaga and Tlafsky, or we say or we could say we meant it when we said it.

00:12Yes, although I don't think it's right to think that the courts of appeals aren't getting the message.

00:17I think they're getting the message. And let me just give you a few examples.

00:20First of all, you have Judge Wilkinson's opinion for the Fourth Circuit here.

00:23And he says many times, I understand that Gonzaga provides the test.

00:27I understand that it has to be unambiguous language.

00:29I understand that we cannot find individual rights in these statutes willy-nilly.

00:34We need to be absolutely sure about it.

00:35But all three of the judges on this panel, including the concurring Judge Richardson,

00:39found that this statute unambiguously confers individual rights,

00:42that it is guaranteeing an individual the right to their provider of choice.

00:46And then if you look at other cases, as I said, there haven't been a lot of cases where people have litigated provisions,

00:53other state plan requirements.

00:56But the courts of appeals have routinely said, no, these things are not individually enforceable.

01:01We gave one of them in our brief an example in Section 832, which is about paying only the provider and not third parties.

01:09There are many other provisions.

01:11But if you're looking for some kind of issue here in the courts of appeals,

01:14like the courts of appeals aren't getting the message, frankly, that's just not true.

01:18It's just that this is a situation where we're talking about an intensely personal right that Congress wanted to protect.

01:24I mean, there aren't that many things that are more important than being able to choose your doctor,

01:29the person that you see when you're at your most vulnerable,

01:32facing some of the most significant challenges to your life and your health.

01:36And Congress said a long time ago, this is something we want to protect.

01:40We want people on Medicaid, who are insured through Medicaid,

01:42to have the same right that people who have private insurance enjoy,

01:45because it's so foundational to individual dignity and individual autonomy.

01:50And it makes sense for Congress to have said that.

01:53I guess a couple other things that have been discussed that I just wanted to make sure that we address.

01:58You know, we understand that there needs to be clear notice provided to the states here about their end of the bargain.

02:03But, you know, as I said, I don't think that there's a disagreement about what this provision does.

02:07I think everyone agrees that it's, you know, you have the right to any qualified and willing provider.

02:12Now, the state has an argument that they think they have an unfettered right to define qualified

02:19as being something other than professional qualifications and medical qualifications.

02:23That is an argument that was made and rejected below in a long discussion by the Fourth Circuit.

02:28The court denied cert on that.

02:30But just to maybe give the court some confidence in the Fourth Circuit's decision,

02:36you know, if this were a case in which there were real question about medical competence,

02:40like is this provider qualified to be a medical provider in the state,

02:44the Fourth Circuit said, of course the state would get a healthy dose of deference in those circumstances.

02:49The Fourth Circuit said that multiple times in its opinion.

02:52But the Fourth Circuit also said, you know, this is an easy case.

02:55There has never been an argument through the long history of this litigation

02:59that Planned Parenthood is unqualified medically, professionally unqualified.

03:03It is only that there is something that Planned Parenthood is doing outside of Medicaid

03:07that the state wants to disqualify it from the program.

03:10And so if it were a real case about qualifications, you know, it's something where the state would get deference.

03:14But it's absolutely wrong under the scheme here to say that the state can just deem any requirement it wants,

03:20you know, that a provider is unqualified.

03:21Too many people who work at the provider have blue eyes or they support green energy or whatever else.

Samuel Alito Questions Attorney During Supreme Court Hearing About Planned Parenthood

Category

Transcript

Recommended