Why Everyone Should Take Notice of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

The United States Supreme Court has brought renewed attention to a crucial principle: citizens can sue the government for violating their constitutional rights.

“Individual plaintiffs may invoke Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. §1983, to sue state or local officials who have deprived them of ‘any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’”
— Justice Clarence Thomas, Concurring Opinion, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the Executive Branch is tasked with enforcing federal law. However, Congress can also empower private individuals to enforce laws through civil litigation. Section 1983 is one such mechanism—allowing individuals to sue those acting under color of state law who violate their constitutional or federal statutory rights.

As the Court has explained:

“Congress sometimes allows private enforcement through §1983, which authorizes suits against state actors who deprive individuals of federal ‘rights, privileges, or immunities.’” — Talevski, 599 U.S., at 183

Section 1983 provides causes of action for the deprivation of “rights,” not just “benefits” or “interests.” — Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 (2002).

While this is not legal advice, the Medina case makes §1983 worth considering when government agencies take actions that arguably infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals—particularly parents.

Consider the following examples:

1. California’s AB 1266

Governor Newsom signed into law AB 1266, which allows students to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers that align with their gender identity—without requiring parental consent.

2. Loudoun County, Virginia

A father was arrested after trying to raise concerns at a school board meeting about his daughter’s alleged sexual assault in a high school bathroom. The accused was a male student wearing a skirt, who allegedly used the school's unisex bathroom policy to gain access (Reuters, 2021).

Both examples highlight growing concerns that some local governments may be undermining parental rights. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that parents have a fundamental right to raise and educate their children—a principle rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, established in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and reaffirmed in Troxel v. Granville (2000).

Historically, §1983 was used to vindicate rights protected by the Constitution. In Maine v. Thiboutot (1980), the Court held that it also applies to violations of federal statutory rights—but not all federal statutes automatically give rise to §1983 claims.

Just something to think about...

After all, America is a constitutional republic, and constitutional rights should not be subject to political winds or ignored in the name of policy.

Case Summary

In 2018, South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, citing state law prohibiting public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood and patient Julie Edwards sued, claiming the exclusion violated the Medicaid any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid beneficiaries to obtain services from any qualified provider. Edwards preferred Planned Parenthood for gynecological care but needed Medicaid coverage. They filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enforce rights under the federal Medicaid statutes. Outcome: Win for South Carolina. Held: Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983.

Case: Medina v Planned Parenthood /South Atlantic, 600 U.S. _(2025).

Dlh Enterprises. Staff

July, 2025