Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a new opinion issued Thursday that the Court should “reexamine” a century-old section of federal law that widely enables civil rights litigation.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision along partisan lines on Thursday in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic rules that states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The South Carolina case originally stems from non-abortion services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.

What To Know

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the conservative-leaning court. Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

But it was Justice Thomas’ parting words in his dissent that also drew attention.

“The Court properly applies our precedents to resolve the question presented,” Thomas writes. “As it makes clear, even under current doctrine, courts should not too readily recognize a statutory right as enforceable under §1983.

“But, given the remarkable gap between the original understanding of §1983 and its current role, a more fundamental reexamination of our §1983 jurisprudence is in order.”

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, known formally as 42 U.S.C. §1983, is a federal law that allows for the suing of state and local government officials for violating constitutional rights. It’s also used widely in federal civil rights litigation.

Thomas’ interpretation and feelings toward the 150-year-old law have been conveyed numerous times in past Court decisions.

In 2020, Thomas dissented on cases the Court declined to hear challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity, writing: “I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence. Because our Section 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition.”

He also argued that while Section 1983 makes no mention of defenses or immunities, its text provides individuals the right to sue and “applies categorically to the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.”

In 2023, as part of the majority reaffirming that private plaintiffs can enforce spending clause enactments under Section 1983, Thomas wrote a 36-page solo dissent arguing provisions and constitutionality under that law.

This past February, the Court ruled in a case involving petitioners from Alabama who were unemployed workers and sued the Alabama Department of Labor under Section 1983 for allegedly unlawfully delaying the processing of state unemployment benefits claims.

“As a matter of first principles, States have unfettered discretion over whether to provide a forum for §1983 claims in their courts,” Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. “And, Alabama’s exhaustion rule does not transgress the limitations that our precedents have recognized.”

What People Are Saying

Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement: “Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions. And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.”

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster in a statement: “Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values—and today, we are finally victorious. The legality of my executive order prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood has been affirmed by the highest court in the land.”

Lila Rose, president and founder of anti-abortion group Live Action, in a post on X: “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund abortion. Let’s finish the job and defund them at the state & federal levels now!”

What Happens Next

The Court’s decision potentially paves the way for other states to mirror how Medicaid funding is distributed.