The majority of the Supreme Court is just as fed up with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as we are.
A slate of Supreme Court opinions were released today, including Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The court sided with Medina in a 6-3 decision, ruling that states like South Carolina are not legally bound to funnel taxpayer dollars towards abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood (RELATED: America’s Worst Supreme Court Justice Can’t Stand Colleagues’ Latest Decision)
Dissenting, as per usual, was liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
BREAKING:
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in the Medina v. Planned Parenthood case that state Medicaid programs can defund Planned Parenthood.
Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund abortion.
Let’s finish the job and defund them at the state & federal levels now! pic.twitter.com/U5V2aPVF4t
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) June 26, 2025
Jackson accused her colleagues of “stymying … the country’s great civil rights laws” – an accusation which the majority opinion refers to as an “extravagant charge.” The fight only heats up from there.
Jackson’s dissent begins by invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1871 – legislation which expanded the federal government’s power to defend citizens’ constitutional rights against “white supremacist violence,” in Jackson’s words.
She accuses South Carolina of asking the Court to “hollow out” provisions in the Civil Rights Act so “the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors. The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”
If you’re following Jackson’s logic, she’s just accused her colleagues of happily trampling on constitutional rights – in the manner of those who would object to post Civil War protections against racial violence. Ever so slightly unbefitting conduct for a judge in the highest court in the land.
Yet Jackson claims her colleagues in the majority are victims of specious logic. “In typical parade-of-horribles-like fashion, the majority also expresses the concern that, if the Court were to hold that the free-choice-of-provider provision confers an individual right, it would mean that ‘[m]any other Medicaid plan requirements would likely do the same.'”
She further refers to Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence as “not tethered to the specific facts or arguments presented in this case.” Therefore, according to Jackson, “an extensive response is not necessary here.” Thomas’ argument is indeed founded on historical legislative review. Still, Jackson’s tone reads as snarky. Jackson is careful here not to explicitly denigrate her fellow justices. Instead, she issues subtle slights which do little to conceal her heightened emotional state.
The majority opinion of the court did not take kindly to Jackson’s remarks. They did express their displeasure more gracefully.
The majority notes, perhaps for Jackson’s benefit, that they “have explained at length” the legal rationale undergirding their decision. “We reach the unsurprising conclusion that it generally belongs to the federal government to supervise compliance with its own spending programs.” If you read closely, you can see Justice Neil Gorsuch’s eyes rolling back into his head.
Jackson’s argument, and Planned Parenthood’s, “stumbles out of the gate” and “suffers from a number of problems,” according to the majority opinion of the court.
“Instead of grappling meaningfully with the test our precedents provide, the dissent proposes to rewrite it,” the opinion continues. “Our precedents do not authorize anything like the dissent’s approach—and for good reasons,” they further argue. “The dissent’s test would risk obliterating the longstanding line between mere benefits and enforceable rights.”
.@PressSec “The President has always maintained that Americans should not be force to violate their conscience and religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions.”
Karoline Leavitt responds to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South… pic.twitter.com/y6XgpDP4Nc
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) June 26, 2025
“To be sure, the dissent assures us that other Medicaid provisions are distinguishable from this one … How? Not based on their text (which the dissent never addresses) but, it seems, based on an unspoken judicial intuition that the provision before us is just more important than others,” the opinion observes. Jackson’s “unspoken judicial intuition” is responsible for many of her dissents. Look no further than her objection to “textualism” (i.e., “faithfully reading the Constitution”). (RELATED: SCOTUS Justice Takes Bold Stand Against The Constitution)
“So, on top of all its other flaws, the dissent’s approach would leave States guessing about the terms of their deals with the federal government and invite courts to revive their long-abandoned approach of usurping Congress’s role in creating rights and remedies,” the court’s majority concludes.
“Satisfying” is not a strong enough word to describe the majority’s rebuke.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03
